'x
..~ 51

12:“

 

‘gii'

 

 

 

a!
. ‘37 .‘In.:..
.1 1.613.! ..

 

 

 

 

, ‘ . $.53, 25:; . ‘
1... . Hmflnoé‘a “when” “8.... .. . £513.55?
“1.

 

v.45 I r 7...... ‘ , . ,
ham.” 3&5»? ‘ , .. i: ‘ s x

 

 

W2“ LIBRARY
Michigan State
a? O ‘3'“ University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

COMPARISON OF LIFE CYCLE IMPACTS OF JAWS
SURFACE CLEANERS AND CONVENTIONAL SURFACE
CLEANER BOTTLES

presented by
SUNIL BHUTANI

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Packaging

x/gamt (avg/Z

Major Professor’s Signature
10/53/55]
/ /

Date

 

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

..—.-.—.—-.-.-.—-—-—-.-I—-.—.—-—.-.--.—-—.-.--.-—.-—-—-—--—.—.—-—-—-.—-.—-u--.-—o—.—l—.—a---—-—.—-.—A---.

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SIOB K‘IProj/Acc&Pres/CIRCIDateDue indd

COMPARISON OF LIFE CYCLE IMPACTS OF JAWS SURFACE CLEANERS
AND CONVENTIONAL SURFACE CLEANER BOTTLES

BY

Sunil Bhutani

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Packaging

2008

ABSTRACT

COMPARISON OF LIFE CYCLE IMPACTS OF JAWS SURFACE CLEANERS
AND CONVENTIONAL SUFACE CLEANER BOTTLES

By
Sunil Bhutani

The life cycle impacts of JAWS surface cleaners were compared with the life
cycle impacts of conventional surface cleaner bottles. The study compared the life cycle
impacts of glass cleaners in conventional 32 02. capacity PET spray bottles and glass
cleaner in the JAWS (Just Add Water System) using refill cartridges. Averages of 10 fills
and of 20 fills per bottle in the JAWS system were compared with standard non-refillable
bottles. The package system compared included the primary package (bottle, sprayer,
labels, etc.) and the distribution packaging (corrugated boxes, pallets, stretch wrap).

A modified life cycle approach was used to tabulate the inputs and outputs
associated with the alternative package systems. All the data was obtained from
published sources. The evaluation of life cycle impacts comprises both life cycle
inventory information, which is simply a tabulation of the inputs and outputs associated
with the package systems being compared, and an evaluation of selected environmental
impacts of those inputs and outputs. Often, comparison of environmental costs and
benefits of competitive package systems is difficult because tradeoffs are involved, with
one system providing benefits in some areas, and the other system benefits in different
areas. In this case, however analysis is simple. The JAWS system provides benefits
across the board: in material use, energy use, energy consumption, greenhouse gas

emissions, air pollutions, water pollutants, and solid waste. ‘

To my brother (Munish @hutani) and my friends (Ria and Q’ankaj)

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express profound gratitude to my advisor Dr. Susan Selke. Not
only has she been very helpful but also an invaluable support through out my M.S. at the
School of Packaging, MSU. I cannot stop thanking for her teaching, supervision and
guidance throughout the projects I did with her. I am also thankful to my other committee
members Dr. Laura Bix and Dr. Satish Joshi for their priceless suggestions.

I am thankful to Dr. Bruce Harte and Dr. Diana Twede for their assistance and
suggestions. My sincere thanks go to all other faculty members who made me feel as a
family member of the School of Packaging.

I am grateful to JAWS® International, Ltd. for funding this project. I wish a lot of
success to them. I owe gratitude to all my friends and colleagues for their help, tolerance,
good humor and support.

I am indebted to my family for their love and encouragement throughout my life.
Such love from my parents, brother and sisters makes me one of the luckiest people on
earth.

Finally, my biggest thanks go to my God who has blessed me with strength, and

has destined me to this path of knowledge and learning.

1.

2.

3.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

Introduction - -- -- _ - 1
1.1. Packaging ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1.1. Primary Packaging ................................................................................... 1
1.1.2. Secondary Packaging ............................................................................... 1
1.1.3. Tertiary Packaging ................................................................................... 1
1.2. Functions of packaging ........................................................................................ 2
I .2. l. Containment ............................................................................................ 2
l .22. Protection ................................................................................................. 2
l .2.3. Communication ....................................................................................... 2
1 .2.4. Convenience ............................................................................................ 3
1.3. Life cycle assessment ........................................................................................... 3
Literature Review -- - 5
2.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Approaches .......................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1. Cradle to Gate .......................................................................................... 6
2.2.2. Cradle to Grave ........................................................................................ 7
2.2.3. Cradle to Cradle ....................................................................................... 7
2.3. Need for LCA ...................................................................................................... 7
2.4. History .................................................................................................................. 9
2.5. Phases of LCA ................................................................................................... 17
2.5.1. Goal and Scope Definition .................................................................... 19
2.5.2. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis ............................................................... 20
2.5.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment .............................................................. 23
2.5.4. Interpretation of results .......................................................................... 24
2.6. Comparative LCA .............................................................................................. 25
2.7. Case Studies ....................................................................................................... 26
2.7.1. Egg packaging ....................................................................................... 26
2.7.2. Reusable and single use bulk transit packaging .................................... 27
2.7.3. Yogurt container .................................................................................... 27
2.7.4. Single-use and reusable cups ................................................................. 29
2.7.5. Alternate coffee packaging .................................................................... 30
2.8. Life Cycle Assessment applications and challenges .......................................... 31
2.9. Approach to current study .................................................................................. 32
Comparative LCA of two ‘glass cleaner’ packaging systems - 33
3.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 33
3.2. Description of packaging system and functional unit ........................................ 33
3.3. Package System Life Cycle Inventory and Impacts .......................................... 39
3.3. 1. Overview ............................................................................................... 39
3.3.2. Energy consumption for package manufacture ..................................... 43
3.3.3. Transportation energy ............................................................................ 44

 

 

 

 

3.3.4. Greenhouse gas emissions ..................................................................... 46
3.3.5. Air pollutant emission ........................................................................... 48
3.3.6. Water emission ...................................................................................... 51
3.3.7. Solid waste ............................................................................................. 54
Limitations and Qualitative Discussions ..... ....... - ............. - - - 58
Conclusion and Recommendation for future work - ................. - 60
Appendices ............ 63
6.1. Appendix A — Data Tables ................................................................................. 63
6.2. Appendix B - Corrugated Box, Pallet and Stretch Wrap Calculations ............. 82
6.3. Appendix C — Truck Transport-Related Emissions ........................................... 84
6.4. Appendix D — Shrink-wrapped JAWS bottle with two cartridges ..................... 89
References ..... - - 90

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 ISO Standards ...................................................................................................... 12
Table 2 Comprehensive list of Life-Cycle Assessment Tools .......................................... 14
Table 3 Comparison of Unique Software Features ........................................................... 17
Table 4 Individual components of the JAWS and conventional package systems ........... 35
Table 5 Weight of packaging components per functional unit ......................................... 38
Table 6 Weight of packaging materials per functional unit, by material type .................. 39
Table 7 Total weights of filled package systems shipped to retailers, g per functional unit
........................................................................................................................................... 45
Table 8 Energy requirements for shipping filled package systems to retailers, MJ per
functional unit ................................................................................................................... 45
Table 9 Greenhouse gas emissions in kg C02 equivalents per functional unit ................ 47

Table 10 Major air emissions from production of plastics materials in packaging systems,
g per functional unit .......................................................................................................... 49

Table 11 Major air emissions from production of paper material in packaging systems, g
per functional unit. ............................................................................................................ 50

Table 12 Major water emissions from production of plastics materials in packaging
systems, g per functional unit. .......................................................................................... 52

Table 13 Major water emissions from production of paper materials in packaging

systems, g per functional unit. .......................................................................................... 53
Table 14 Recovery/recycling rates used for estimation of solid waste contributions ....... 55
Table 15 Estimated solid waste contributions after recycling, g per functional unit ........ 56

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Life Cycle Analysis .............................................................................................. 4
Figure 2 Total MSW Generation (by Category), 2006 ....................................................... 8
Figure 3 LCA Framework ................................................................................................. 18
Figure 4 Schematic of Life Cycle. .................................................................................... 40
Figure 5 Comparison of the energy required for the manufacturing. ............................... 43
Figure 6 Comparison of energy used in transportation ..................................................... 46
Figure 7 Comparison of greenhouse gases ....................................................................... 47
Figure 8 Comparisons of major air emissions .................................................................. 51
Figure 9 Comparisons of major water emissions .............................................................. 54
Figure 10 Comparisons of overall estimated solid waste ................................................. 57
Figure 11 Shrink-wrapped JAWS bottle with two cartridges. .......................................... 89

vi‘u

1. Introduction

1.1. Packaging

For centuries, packaging has always been an essential need for human kind in its
own way. In ancient times, people used bamboo baskets and animal skins to stock up
their provisions. Though our ancestor’s packaging styles were basic and not always
sanitary, they were the predecessors of our current packaging and containers. The word
“packaging” refers to the container or wrapper used to enclose or hold a product [1] and it
is an essential part of the product supply chain. Packaging can be categorized in three
different types: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Packaging. [2]
1.1.1. Primary Packaging

Primary packaging is the material that is in direct contact with a product or
products. It is the material that encloses the product and holds it. For example, a plastic
bottle containing Coca—ColaTM drink is the primary packaging for a coca-cola drink.
1.1.2. Secondary Packaging

Secondary packaging is the material used to hold a number of primary packages
together. It is outside of the primary packaging and does not come in contact with the
product. For example, a box containing 6 bottles of Coca-ColaTM is the secondary
packaging.
1.1.3. Tertiary Packaging

The packaging used to hold secondary packages during transportation or storage
or bulk handling is called tertiary packaging. For example, a large pallet of shrink-

wrapped boxes of Coca-ColaTM is called tertiary packaging.

1.2. Functions of packaging

For ages, packaging has had a significant relationship with product. There are a
number of functions of packaging including the following four basic functions:
1.2.1. Containment

One of the basic functions of a package is to provide containment to a product.
There are many physical forms of product like gas, liquid, powder, paste, granules etc.
that cannot be transported without a package. Packaging makes a consumer’s life easy
when it comes to the usage of products. [3, 4]
1.2.2. Protection

Packaging should provide protection to the contents of the package from the
atmosphere and vice versa. Most products, whether they are food, medicine or electronic,
require protection from temperature and humidity, and packaging should serve well in
providing protection from the environment. Packaging should also extend the shelf life of
a product. Packaging should also protect the product from mechanical shock, vibration,
crushing, piercing, tearing, and electrostatic discharge during transportation or handling.
In the case of transportation of hazardous materials, where the safety of human beings is
of prime concern, packaging must not only protect human beings but also prevent any
contamination or damage of the environment and other substances. [3, 4]
1.2.3. Communication

The shapes of a package and its designing, labeling, and printing serves as a
communication function of packaging. For example; a warning (fragile) sign on a
package enclosing a glass product or a tracking barcode on a shipping box can easily

communicate a message to the person who is holding/shipping the product. Designing

and printing can be a major factor in terms of product sale and it can make the sale
process more efficient. However, labeling, printing, etc should meet all the legal
requirements. Important information printed on the packaging can provide a customer all
the details about the product and its usage. [3, 4]
1.2.4. Convenience

Shape, weight and size of packaging can affect the performance or utility
including stacking, ease of opening, safe handling, filling, sealing, etc. Packaging is one
of the crucial factors when it comes to the efficiency of transport, handling and storage of
goods, especially when the handling is to be entirely or partially manual. A package
should be easy to open, close, reopen and store safely and appropriately. The design of a
package should be in such a way that it may not only be held, lifted and stowed
efficiently and safely, but also could lead to space-saving storage. [3, 4]
1.3. Life cycle assessment

Nowadays, modern packaging is not only about protection, storage,
communication, ease of transport, sales, promotions, etc. but it must also have minimum
impact on the environment. The environmental impact of a product does not start when
you possess it, rather it starts a way before and ends after you own it. Every product goes
through a cycle throughout its life time, from extraction and processing of raw materials
to manufacturing to packaging to use and to disposal. Figure 1 below illustrates the
possible life cycle stages, which can be considered in this cradle-to-grave approach of life
cycle analysis. The storage and transportation of a product are also important stages that

make an impact on the environment.

Raw Material .5 8qu Material

Grave Processing I

Manufacturing
Recycle/Disposal l
A
Transportation

 

——- End User ¢—— Distribution

Figure 1 Life Cycle Analysis

There are a number of factors including the production, filling, distribution,
consumption and recyclability that can influence the environmental impacts. Though the
environmental performance is a broad and complex topic, there are tools that can be used
to assess the environmental impacts of a product or service.

Life Cycle Analysis is a technique that is used to analyze the environmental
impacts of a packaging system throughout its life cycle. It is also known as the ‘Cradle to
Grave’ technique that signifies the detail assessment of the life cycle of the packaging,
i.e. the raw material production, container/package manufacturing, filling, distribution,
product consumption and final disposal/recycling. It also includes the prevailing
transportation in between the material production and the disposal/recycling. Not only
can we evaluate the environmental loads and impact of these loads but also we can

compare the two different systems and assess the options available. [5-7]

2. Literature Review

2.1. Introduction

Packaging has always played an important part in our lives. Being an integral part
of our daily life, it has become a need for the society. For example, one can purchase
milk from the farmer, but a carton/bottle is required to bring it home. From a consumer
point of view, the package should fulfill its function of protection, containment and
convenience all the time. When a consumer buys a product, s/he buys the product, not the
package and once the product is consumed, the same package becomes a waste.
Continuing with the above example, a carton/bottle can be used to bring milk from the
farmer to home but this package will go into the waste bin once the product is consumed,
which can create a burden to the environment. This unfriendly side of packaging has led
us to think about the ways to minimize the environmental impacts of the packaging.

Knowing ‘how to measure the environmental impacts of packaging’ is very
essential before one starts looking for the ways to minimize it, and life cycle assessment
is a tool that can be used to measure the different environmental impacts of a
product/service throughout its life cycle. The life cycle of a product includes extraction of
raw material, processing, manufacturing, transportation, distribution, usage, resue,
recycling, and final disposal. All the environmental burdens related to every unit process
are quantified and can be used in making some important decisions related to
environmental outcomes; for example how to develop and improve the product, or how to
design environmental policies, etc. LCA can work as a communicator within or outside

companies to resolve disputes on environmental impacts.

The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry defines life cycle
assessment as:

.....an objective process to evaluate the environmental burdens

associated with a product process or activity by identifying and

quantifying energy and materials used and wastes released to the
environment, to assess the impact of those energy and materials uses and

releases on the environment, and to evaluate and implement

opportunities to effect environmental improvements” [8].

LCA is a very complex tool but since it is based on scientific data, it can provide
necessary information to solve the environmental issues. To understand all the features of
LCA, this chapter has been divided into different sections. The first few sections present
an overview of the basic life cycle assessment, different approaches to life cycle
assessment, and needs for LCA. However the last section covers one of the important
topics - different phases of LCA.

2.2. Approaches

Packaging interactions in packaging systems start from the moment the packaging
material and the product come in contact with each other and the external environment
during its production, processing, packaging and storage. These interactions extend
throughout the life cycle of a package. There are a number of approaches that can be
taken into consideration to assess the life cycle of a product.

2.2.1. Cradle to Gate
The cradle to gate approach represents the assessment of environmental burdens

by a product from the manufacturing to delivery to seller. The word “Cradle” represents

the beginning of a product and the word “Gate” represents the market for a product. In
other words we can say that it includes the measurements of environmental impacts of a
product until it is produced or delivered. The end of life scenario and the usage is not
included in this approach. [9, 10]
2.2.2. Cradle to Grave

The cradle to grave approach signifies the detailed assessment of the whole life
cycle, i.e. the raw material production, container/package manufacturing, filling,
distribution, product consumption and final disposal/recycling. It also includes the
prevailing transportation in between the material production and the disposal/recycling.
[6, 11, 12]
2.2.3. Cradle to Cradle

The cradle to cradle approach signifies the intelligent design of a product/system,
where the grave of one product can be the cradle for some other product. In other words,
we can say that the end of a product can be a start for an other product. It includes the use
of renewable energy sources, use of environmentally safe materials, material re-usage
like recycling, etc., and considers the social responsibilities also. [10, 12]
2.3. Need for LCA

Solid waste has been an important issue for many years. The increasing volume of
solid waste generation has always taken the attention of everyone to study the effect of
packaging on the environment. One of the most primitive applications of LCA was for
packaging.

Americans generate million of tons of waste every year. The total annual

generation of MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) of the United States in 1960 was 88.1

million tons, which increased to 245.7 million tons in 2005. Containers and packaging
made up 31.2% of the waste generated, about 77 million tons [13]. As shown in Figure 2
below, the total municipal solid waste generated in 2006 was 251 million tons (before
recycling) and containers and packaging made up 31.7 percent of the waste generated

[14].

Other Wastes
Food Scrap 1-5 %
12.4% '2 '

      
 
  

Containers &
Packaging 31.7%
Yard Trimmings
12.9%
Durable Goods
16%
Nondurable Goods

25.5 %

Figure 2 Total MSW Generation (by Category), 2006
These alarming figures have driven the industry to approach “Green” strategies.
Nowadays ‘Environmentally Friendly’ packaging systems has become a trend/crucial
need for the industry sector and life cycle analysis can be used as a successful tool by the
companies to be competent in the business market. LCA is a decision-support tool which
can be used in quantifying the environmental impacts related to products, processes, and

activities [15, 16]. It can help in deciding between different choices related to a product

or system [17]. LCA can help the industry people to spot the areas where environmental
progress can be done [17].

There are a number of tools available to provide information on the environmental
burdens but LCA focuses on products/functions, which are an integral part of every
business. Thus LCA can be worked as an effective tool when it comes to the changing of
environmental policies on products or services. Also life cycle assessment takes an
integrative approach considering all the environmental burdens produced during every
unit process throughout the life cycle of a product or service. Sometimes a change in one
stage of a life cycle can induce new problems in some other stage. Therefore while
making a decision relating to an environmental issue, the long term strategy should be
used based on the information and facts quantified by the assessment tools. Since LCA
is a quantitative tool which works on scientific data, it can provide credible information
which helps in an efficient decision making process.

2.4. History

LCA started in the late 19605 and early 19703. Harold Smith presented one of the
studies on LCA at the World Energy Conference in 1963. One of the early life cycle
analysis studies was conducted in 1969 for the Coca Cola Company [15]. This Life Cycle
Analysis started by the Midwest Research Institute (MRI) focused on analysis of different
beverage packaging systems to find out which packaging system had the minimum effect
on the resource utilization and on the environment [18]. The early methodology in similar
life cycle analyses, building an approach called Resource and Environment Profile
Analysis (REPAs) paid attention to issues like energy efficiency, raw material utilization,

and waste flow. In Europe, it was known as Econobalance. In the early 19705 the global

oil crises happened, which shifted the focus of life cycle analysis onto ‘net energy
analysis’ rather than waste flow and emissions. In the late 19703 and early 19805, once
the oil crisis settled down, life cycle analysis studies focused on issues such as hazardous
waste management. [15, 16, 19]

In the late 19805, because of the shortage of landfill space, there was a demand
for alternative disposal methods that led to use of life cycle analysis as a tool to analyze
the solid waste problem. Also, the ‘Green Movement’ in Europe, which made companies
want to prove their products greener than their competitor’s products, led to a number of
comparative life cycle analysis studies. In 1990, for the Council for Solid Waste
Solutions, a life cycle assessment was done comparing the environmental burdens of
paper to that of plastic grocery bags [20].
flttle between cloth and disposable diapers

In the early nineties, a number of comparative life cycle assessment studies
between cloth and disposable diapers were conducted which showed us a battle of “who
is better than who”. In 1990, Franklin Associates conducted an LCA study for the
American Forest and Paper Association, which compared cloth and paper diapers. They
concluded that all diapering options had several ecological and energy effects and
specifically, that “cloth diapers produce seven times as much waterborne waste and
consume four times as much water volume as paper diapers”. This study favored the
disposable diapers over cloth diapers [21].

In 1991, another study done by Lehrberger & Jones for the National Association

of Diaper Services (NADS) concluded the opposite of what Franklin Associates study

10

concluded. They stated that the disposable diapers use 70% more energy than reusable
cloth diapers [22]. Basically the study favored the cloth diapers over disposable diapers.

In 1992, A. D. Little conducted another study for Procter and Gamble, which
favored the paper diapers over cloth diapers [23]. In the same year Franklin Associate did
a new study that concluded the battle between cloth and disposable diapers. This study
showed that the answer of ‘which diaper is better than the other’ depends on how you
look at the results [23]. It depends on the factors that you are concentrating on - whether
it is energy or water or solid waste.

This diaper controversy demonstrated the importance of the boundaries placed for
life cycle analysis. Most of the initial studies did not use similar methodologies and put
up some extensive marketing claims to promote products. These actions demonstrated the
inappropriate use of LCA that led to the development of LCA standards.

The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) took the first
step towards an international LCA standard. SETAC published a report “A Technical
Framework for Life Cycle Assessments,” which provided the standard guidelines for a
life cycle analysis [24]. These guidelines included the various components of an LCA:
goal definition, inventory assessment, impact assessment, and improvement analysis.
This approach of SETAC took LCA to another level where the studies do not focus on
merely inventory quantification but consider the environmental impacts also. In the late
1990’s, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) published the ISO 14040
series, which included the standard principles and framework for Life Cycle Analysis.
Since then the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has been publishing

and updating the standards in its 14000 series.

11

According to ISO/EN 14040, the life cycle analysis

. .involves data collection and calculation procedures to quantify relevant inputs
and outputs of a product system. These inputs and outputs may include the use of
resources and release to air, water and land associated with the system”.

Table 1 represents relevant international standards and drafts of the ISO 14000
series, in general, accepted as a framework for life cycle assessment:

Table 1 ISO Standards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ISO - 14000 Series Year Detail

ISO 14040 1997 Principles and Framework

ISO 14041 1998 Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis

ISO 14042 2000 Life Cycle Impact Assessment

ISO 14043 2000 Life Cycle Interpretation
ISO/T R 14047 Examples of application of ISO 14042
ISO/T S 14048 2002 Data documentation format

Examples of Application of ISO 14041 to Goal and
ISO/TR 14049 2000
Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

Even though we have standard methodology, there are still arguments about
whether the impact assessment techniques application to inventory data of LCA is based
on science. With the progress of LCA, the growth of software tools and databases for
executing LCA was happening. This software was emerging to make the complex
calculations of LCA effortless. The software works as a tool, which helps in collecting
and evaluating the environmental performances of products or services. Typical LCA

software contains various life cycle inventory databases from which one can quantify the

12

inputs and outputs related to all the unit processes of the LCA study. Though this
software is developed to make the quantification and calculations for LCA easier, there
are a few issues that limit its usage. Following are few benefits and limitations related to
the usage of LCA software [17].

Benefits:

1. Software can work as a support tool in quantifying the inputs and outputs related
to every unit process. It can help in creating an inventory of all the resources and
emissions.

2. It can help in evaluating all the results and decision making.

3. In case of any mistake, it could be easier to trace back the whole process with the
help of software. This transparency feature of software can be very beneficial to find any
mistake that happened throughout the assessment.

4. There are a number of features in the software that can used to present the results.
Depending upon the target audience, different presentation styles can be chosen to
display the results.

5. The data is usually taken from the database or library in the software. These
databases can be updated which can make sure that the user gets good quality data.

6. Some software comes with a number of uncertainty analysis tools, which can help
in assessing the affect of uncertainty on the outputs.

Limitations:
1. Sometimes it can be hard to find software that includes all the information

relating to every unit process that you are considering in your LCA study.

13

2. Some software is compatible to one operating system. (e.g. SimaPro works with
Microsoft windows not with Mac OS) which limits its usage.

3. Though working on LCA software can be an easy process, it might require some
training sessions for first time users.

4. Purchasing or licensing the software can be quite expensive sometimes.

A number of life cycle assessment tools are commercially available all around the
world, which can either be purchased or licensed for a time period. Table 2 represents the
37 major LCA software tools which are offered in the market except for four software
tools (EcoSys, EDIP, LCAD and SimaTool) that are still under development [25].

Table 2 Comprehensive list of Life-Cycle Assessment Tools

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data
81. No. Name Vendor Version Cost, SK
Location
1 Boustead Boustead 2 24 Europe
2 CLEAN EPRI 2 14 US.
Univ. of
3 CUMPAN Unknown Unknown Germany
Hohenheim
4 EcoAssessor PIRA Unknown Unknown UK
Franklin
5 EcoManager l 10 Europe/US.
Associates, Ltd.
6 ECONTROL Oekoscience Unknown Unknown Switzerland
7 EcoPack2000 Max Bolliger 2.2 5.8 Switzerland
8 EcoPro EMPA 1 Unknown Switzerland
9 EcoSys Sadia/DOE Prototype Unknown U.S.

 

 

 

 

 

 

l4

 

Table 2 Contd.

 

Inst. For Prod.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 EDIP Prototype Unknown Denmark
Devel.
1 l EMIS Carbotech Unknown Unknown Switzerland
12 EPS IVL 1 Unknown Sweden
13 GaBi IPTS 2 10 Germany
14 Heraklit Fraunhofer Inst. Unknown Unknown Germany
15 IDEA IIASA Unknown Unknown Europe
Finnish Paper
16 KCL-ECO 1 3.6 Finland
Inst.
17 LCAI P&G/ETH 1 Not Avail. Europe
1 8 LCAD Battelle/DOE Prototype < 1 US.
Chalmers
19 LCAiT 2.0 3.5 Sweden
Industriteknik
20 LCASys Philips/ORIGIN Unknown Unknown Netherlands
21 LIMS Chem Systems 1 25 US.
LMS Eco-Inv. Christopher
22 1 Unknown Austria
Tool Machner
23 Oeko-Base Peter Meier Unknown Unknown Switzerland
Ave.

24 PEMS PIRA 3.1 9.1

European
25 PIA BMI/TME 1.2 1.4 Europe
26 PIUSSOECOS PSI AG Unknown Unknown Germany

 

15

 

Table 2 Contd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visionik
27 PLA Unknown Unknown Denmark
ApS
Simum
28 REGIS Unknown Unknown Switzerland
Gmbh
Franklin
29 REPAQ Associates, 2 10 US.
Ltd.
Pre’
30 SimaPro 3. 1 3 Netherlands
Consulting
Leiden
31 SimTool Prototype Unknown Netherlands
Univ.
32 Simbox EAWAG Unknown Unknown Switzerland
33 TEAM Ecobalance 1.15 & 2.0 10 Europe/U S
Oko-
34 TEMIS 2 Unknown Europe
Institute
35 TetraSolver TetraPak Unknown Unknown Europe
36 Umberto IFEU Unknown Unknown Germany
Particip
37 Umcon Unknown Unknown Germany
Gmbh

 

 

An evaluation study of Life—Cycle Assessment tools was done by Dean M. Menke
and Gary A. Davis in 1996. In this study, 14 software packages were evaluated and 5

were selected for in-depth evaluation. It was concluded that “there are a number of

16

unique features/capabilities not found in every LCA software tool”. Table 3 represents
the comparative evaluation of five software systems focusing on unique software
features. [25]

Table 3 Comparison of Unique Software Features

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KCL-ECO LCAiT PEMS SimaPro TEAM

Graphical Interface \/ \I \I \/
Data Protection \l (j (j
Unit Flexibility \I J
Use of Formulas J ‘I
Uncertainty Analysis f \j \[
Impact Assessment \/ x] \j \1
Comparison of Results \/ (I (j

Graphical Display of

\l \l v
Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.5. Phases of LCA
To get a logical understanding of LCA, all processes have been structured in four
main components. According to the understanding of the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO 14040, 1997), there are four phases in LCA methodology as shown
in Figure 3:
1. Goal and Scope Definition

2. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis

U)

. Life Cycle Impact Assessment

A

. Interpretation of Results

17

Each phase is divided into many sub-parts explaining the necessary steps required
for the LCA process. The first phase is to define the goal and scope of the study in which
the product/s, main aim and range of the study are explained. The second phase is life
cycle inventory analysis, which is divided into four different subcategories explaining the
different necessary steps to quantify the inputs (energy, raw materials used) and the
outputs (hazardous and non hazardous emissions) for each process. The third phase is life
cycle impact assessment in which impacts of all the emissions are characterized and
quantified. The final phase of LCA methodology is interpretation of results in which all

the results are quantified and interpreted in the most instructive way possible.

 

 

Goal and Sc0pe . Life Cycle Inventory Analysis
Definition
- Flow diagram

- Product/Process/Activity - Data collection plan
- Target Audience E“ — Data gathering
- Need - Evaluation and documentation
- Functional Unit
- Range

- Assumptions/Boundaries

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interpretation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment

 

Results
— Selection and definition
- Spotting out important issues - Classification
- Evaluation 4 .. - Characterization
- Conclusion, recommendation, — Normalization
and reporting - Grouping
- Weighting

- Evaluation and documentation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3 LCA Framework

18

2.5.1. Goal and Scope Definition
In this first phase of the LCA process, the goal and the scope of the study are
defined, which establishes the time and resources needed for a particular project. In other
words, the main purpose and range of the study are defined in this phase that provides
guidance to finish the project with meaningful results. This stage explains what goals are
to be achieved and how they will be carried out. The following are the sub-parts of this
phase that are included in Goal and Scope Definition.
1. Subject: It is important to describe and define the subject of the study in detail.
The following are a few questions which should be answered in this step —
a. What kind of a product/process/activity is it?
b. What amount of it should be considered in the study?
c. Up to what level should the study extend?
2. Need: In this step, one should be able to answer questions like —
a. Why do we need to do this study?
b. Is this study‘for an existing product or to develop a new product?
c. 15 the purpose of the study to compare products?
(I. Is this study to get information only or to prove something (which product
is superior, etc.)?
3. Initiator and Target audience: The following questions are important issues that
should be considered in this step of goal and scope definition.
a. Who has initiated the study?

b. Is the target audience internal or public or governmental?

l9

c. 15 the main aim of this study to provide data/results to an organization
internally? Or to compare products publicly?
(1. Or are the results for both internal and external use?

4. Functional unit: The functional unit is a quantifying value, which can explain the
function of the product or service. In case of a comparative study between different
products/services serving the same function, it is very hard to compare one
product/service to another product/service because each may have some distinctive
characteristics. Thus to keep a comparison criterion identical, a functional unit is defined
in this phase. For example; in case of a comparative LCA study of two cordless phones
that use different sizes of batteries, the functional unit would not be the same number of
batteries used in both phones. The functional unit would refer to the overall function, e. g.
the number of batteries required for 500 hours of communication.

5. Assumption/boundaries/range: Any assumptions or project boundaries, whether
related to location, material, transportation, equipment, etc., are defined in this Goal and
Scope definition stage of LCA. All the stages of a product/process: raw material
acquisition, manufacturing, use/reuse/maintenance, and recycle/waste management, are
defined in detail in this phase. Up to what extent these stages should be involved, and
how detailed a study is required, are defined in this phase.

2.5.2. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis

A life cycle inventory is a process in which energy and raw material requirements,
air emissions, water emissions, solid waste generation and other environmental releases
encountered throughout the life cycle of a product/process/service are collected and

organized. This quantification of the input and output data can be very useful when

20

comparing products or processes. Life cycle inventory is a complex and time consuming
process that includes the construction of a flow diagram, making of a data collection plan,
gathering of data and, finally, evaluation of the data. Any incomplete data or variations in
the way data were collected add to the complexity of this process. Construction of a flow
chart is a crucial step in this phase. An ideal flow chart should start with extraction of
materials and raw products and end with environmental releases and waste, including all
the in-between processes. The following are the key steps of the life cycle inventory
phase:

1. Constructing a flow diagram of the process: A flow diagram is a qualitative
means to represent the inputs (material, energy, etc.) and the outputs (hazardous material,
non-hazardous material, etc.) of all the unit processes throughout the life cycle of a
product system. In this step, all unit processes are linked together to form a complete life
cycle picture keeping pre—determined system boundaries in mind. Constructing a flow
diagram of all unit processes helps in keeping the study transparent. The following
approach can be used to construct a process flow chart.

a. Start with the manufacturing process.

b. Classify all the necessary processing steps.

c. Connect all the ‘before manufacturing’ processes (extraction,
manufacturing and processing of raw materials etc.) and ‘after
manufacturing’ processes (recycling, waste treatment etc.) respectively.

(I. Designate a separate box for by-products wherever it is applicable.

e. Mark unfamiliar processes.

21

The main purpose of this step is to get a big picture of the study without going
into small details of every unit process.

2. Data collection plan: In this demanding part of an LCA, a data-collecting plan is
made to structure all the data quality needs for the assessment. A plan is made to collect
all the input and output flow relating to every process explained in the flow chart. All the
data sources and methods of data collection are also defined in this step. There are a
number of sources and methods available which can help to collect the data required for
life cycle assessment. Some of the examples are written below.

a. Scientific Journals;

b. Reference books;

c. Surveys;

(1. Laboratory test results;

e. Interviews;

f. Technical encyclopedias;

g. Theoretical calculations, etc.

A data collection plan is an important step in the life cycle inventory phase
because the required data is not always available. Thus a plan made earlier can work
things out easily and clearly.

3. Data gathering and documentation: Keeping the data flow chart (constructed in
step 1) in mind, all the required input and output data is gathered using the data collection
sources and methods (explained in step 2) and documented in a presentable format.
Collecting the input/output data related to all the processes can be a time consuming and

complex procedure, and the slightest error could lead to severe setbacks. A standard sheet

22

can be used to record all the data in a systematic way so that the tracking of data could be
easier. Once the data related to inputs (material, energy etc) and outputs (hazardous
material, non-hazardous material etc) is collected, it is documented on standard sheets.

4. Evaluation: In this final step of life cycle inventory phase, keeping the aim of the
study in mind, all the collected data is evaluated. There are a number of tools available to
make the necessary calculations. To make more sense of all the outcomes, it is always I
advised that calculations should be done with the same unit. For example, all the
emissions of C0 are quantified and added up together showing as the total CO released
by the system.

2.5.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Life cycle impact assessment is a procedure to categorize and characterize the
impact of the system on human health, plants, and animals, or the future availability of
natural resources. Life cycle impact assessment provides an understandable basis to
differentiate between impacts of environmental releases that are mentioned in the
inventory tables to environmental burdens. The following are the key steps of a Life
Cycle Impact Assessment.

1. Selection and Definition: In this step, different impact categories are selected and
defined. This step works as a part of the goal and scope definition phase of life cycle
assessment. All the impact categories that are relevant to the study are acknowledged in
this step.

2. Grouping: In this step, depending on different types of errrissions (e.g. air, water)
or location (e. g. local, global) or priority (high, low, medium etc.), impact indicators are

assigned into groups.

23

3. Classification and Characterization: In this step, Life Cycle Impact (LCI) results
are organized and assigned to impact categories. Using science-based conversion factors,
the LCI results are converted into comparable impact indicators, which if added, can give
us a total score for each environmental burden. For example, using CO; equivalency
conversion factors, LCI results can be expressed as an overall indicator of global
warming potential.

4. Normalization: This is an optional step, which can be used to relate the
environmental impacts to the local or global emissions. Using a selected reference value,
the impact indicators are standardized so that they could be matched among different
impact categories. For example: the reference may be selected as an average yearly
environmental burden in a country or continent divided by the population. Impact
category divided by the reference will make the same unit for all impact category
indicators.

5. Weighting: In this step, different impact categories are assigned relative values. In
other words, some impact categories are highlighted as an important class in comparison
to other categories.

6. Evaluation and Documentation: To check accuracy and reliability of the
outcomes, all the results are evaluated and documented in this step.

2.5.4. Interpretation of results
In this last phase of the life cycle assessment process, all the results of LCI and
LCIA are quantified and the information obtained from these results is evaluated. The

main objectives of the life cycle interpretation are to assess results, draw conclusions,

24

explain boundaries, provide recommendations, and report in an understandable and
satisfactory manner. The following are the key steps of this phase.

1. Spotting important issues: In this step, all the information obtained from LCI and
LCIA is reviewed in detail and important categories that contributed significantly to the
outcomes of LCI and LCIA are presented.

2. Evaluation: To keep the consistency of the results of the life cycle assessment
study, all the relevant data and information is completely examined and checked.

3. Conclusion, Recommendations and Reporting: In this final step of the life cycle
interpretation phase, the results are interpreted and conclusions regarding the significant
impacts of different processes/products are drawn. Keeping the goals and scope of the
study in mind, several recommendations are also made in this step. Once the study is
completed, a comprehensive report including the results, methods, data, assumptions, and
limitations, is generated in an understandable, complete, clear and presentable manner.
2.6. Comparative LCA

Life cycle assessment is a technique for assessing the environmental impacts
associated with a product over its life cycle, such as climate change, greenhouse effect,
ozone depletion, acidification, heavy metals, winter and summer smog, eutrophication,
carcinogens, toxicological impact on human health, depletion of resources — and others.
One of the most important applications of Life Cycle Assessment is to characterize the
environmental burdens with an aim to prioritize improvements in products or processes.
LCA can also be used in making decisions among choices of different systems delivering
a common purpose, making sure that assumptions and classifications are transparent and

explained effectively. Instead of making temporary decisions that can lead to

25

environmental degradation, LCA can help in making a choice of the best alternative
among different choices. On the basis of comparative life cycle assessment between two
products delivering the same function, environmental claims relating to the dominance of
one product against a challenging product can be stated.
2.7. Case Studies

Numerous LCA based comparative studies between different packaging systems
have been done in the past. Some examples of comparative life cycle assessment studies
are discussed in this section.
2.7.1. Egg packaging

A study done at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, presents the
application of Life Cycle Assessment for comparative analysis of two egg packaging
products, polystyrene and recycled paper. By quantifying all the energy and material uses
and releases, the environmental performances of two packages were characterized and
their impacts were assessed throughout the life cycle including extracting and processing
raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, and distribution, use, reuse, maintenance,
recycling and final disposal. The landfill disposal was taken into account for both egg
packaging products. Unlike recycled paper egg cups, the production cycle for polystyrene
was traced back to the extraction of raw materials from the earth and data for polystyrene
production was taken from Life Cycle Assessment Software developed by Pre’
Consultants - SimaPro 4.0 (demo version) databases. The Eco-Indicator’95 method was
used to measure the environmental impacts associated with the two egg packaging

products. [26]

26

Considering the ambiguity of the findings, the study concluded that the
polystyrene (PS) package has a bigger environmental impact then the recycled package.
2.7.2. Reusable and single use bulk transit packaging

A comparative Life Cycle Assessment was conducted involving the comparison
of re-usable and single-use bulk transit packaging used in the transportation of empty
yoghurt containers in New Zealand. This study is a great source of help for the reader
who needs to attain more knowledge about the comparative life cycle assessment of
different packaging systems. In this study, using surrogate/proxy data from the
Environmental Priorities Strategy (EPS) 2000 Default Method, a simplified life cycle
analysis of a conventional single-use wooden pallet packaging system and a re-usable
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) packaging system was conducted.

The requisite data was taken mainly from Simapro 5.1 and partially from the
Association of Plastic Manufacturers in Europe (APME) and the Life Cycle Assessment
Data Inventory of the Centre for Design at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. The
author made an effort to ensure to keep the system limitations and data value and sources
as parallel as possible. A statistical analysis was followed by the life cycle analysis and
the result showed that the impact of the reusable plastic packaging system was four times
less severe than conventional wooden pallet packaging system at a confidence level of
96.5%. The reusability and recyclability of the plastic packaging system made it a most
likely superior choice over the conventional wooden pallet. [27]

2.7.3. Yogurt container
A life cycle assessment was conducted on the yogurt product delivery system

(4,6,8 and 32 oz polypropylene cups and 2 oz linear low density polyethylene tubes) used

27

by Stonyfield Farm, New Hampshire. The delivery of 1000 lb yogurt to market
(distributor/retailer) was considered as the functional unit for the yogurt product delivery
system. Data was collected and calculations on the inputs (material, water, energy) and
outputs (water pollutant emission, air pollutant emission, solid waste) associated with
different process units — material production, distribution, manufacturing, filling, yogurt
consumption and end-of—life were performed to characterize the importance of two
impact categories: global warming potential (GWP) and ozone depletion potential (ODP).

The results of life cycle assessment on the yogurt product delivery system
indicated that the environmental burdens are inversely proportional to container size.
Among the 6 oz, 8 oz and 32 oz containers, the 32 oz yogurt cups were indicated as the
best option in every class. The total energy consumption for 32 oz containers was the
lowest among the whole product delivery system. The overall solid waste generation was
the highest for smaller containers (2 oz, 4 oz) and the water emissions were also inversely
related to the container sizes. [28]

To improve the environmental performance of these systems, ten strategies were
investigated and their impacts on the environmental burdens at each phase of the life
cycle were quantified. It was proposed that changing the cup manufacturing process from
injection-molding to thermoforrrring would result in a decrease in energy consumption for
the composite product delivery system (PDS), solid waste and life cycle global warnring
potential (GWP). Also eliminating the lids on the 6 and 8 oz size containers would result

in a reduction of energy consumption and solid waste. [28]

28

2.7.4. Single-use and reusable cups

A computer—based life cycle assessment study was done to determine the
environmental performances of the reusable cup and single—use cup of the same
composition (polypropylene). The environmental assessment of reusable cups used
during an event that took place in Barcelona, Universal Forum of Cultures, 2004 was
compared with that of single-use cups. The main aim of this study was to find the
minimum number of times the reusable cup has to be reused so that its environmental
impact is less than that of the single-use cup. SimaPro software (which was developed by
Pre’ Consultants) was used to evaluate and compare the environmental assessment of both
types of cups. A serving of 1000 liters of beverage was considered as the functional unit
and different reuse scenarios (2, 9, 10, and 14 uses) were studied. This study considered
the washing of reusable cups also. However the quantity of soap used and the amount of
soap emissions into the water were not considered at all. [29]

The study concluded that the environmental impacts of the reusable cups would
be smaller than that of single-use cups if the minimum number of reuses of the reusable
cup was 10 and the impacts will be decreased if the number of reuses increases.

Since the main reason for this kind of result was the higher weight of the reusable
cup, it was proposed that the environmental impact associated with the reusable cup
would have been decreased if the weight of the reusable cup was lowered by introducing
LCA methodology during the design of the reusable cup. This would have resulted in a

smaller number of uses of the reusable cup. [29]

29

2.7.5. Alternate coffee packaging
A life cycle analysis study done in Trieste, Italy included a comparison between
the environmental impacts associated with different packaging systems for coffee trade.
In this life cycle assessment study, the following five packaging systems were considered
with respect to the functional unit of 1 kg of packed coffee.
1. Cans with a capacity of 3 kg.
2. Cans with a capacity of 250 g.
3. Cans with a capacity of 125 g.
4. Cans with a capacity of 36 single-use coffee servings (250 g).
5. Poly-laminate bags with a capacity of 40 single-use coffee servings (280g).
SimaPro 5.0 (life cycle analysis software, which was developed by Pré
Consultants) was used to evaluate and compare the environmental impacts of alternative
coffee packaging systems. Since the factors related to coffee cultivation, transportation
and processing until the end of roasting process were constant for every packaging
system, they were not included in this study. Regarding the energy production, life cycle
assessment was localized to Italy only. However in respect to raw materials, Europe was
integrated as the geographical region of interest. A mass and energy balance was
generated relating to the various processes involved in coffee packaging and specific data
about material, emissions, and energy consumption etc. were taken from the company.
[30]
Various impacts related to different effects - greenhouse effect, ozone depletion,
acidification, heavy metals, winter and summer smog, eutrophication and carcinogens

were assessed and final comparisons were studied with respect to different alternative

30

coffee packaging. Results concluded that if the final disposal is not considered, the bigger
packaging alternative (3 kg can) has the smallest impacts and the smallest packaging
alternative (250 g can with a capacity of 36 single—use coffee servings) shows the biggest
impact. Consideration of final disposal for all packaging systems resulted in a common
rise in the impact values. [30]
2.8. Life Cycle Assessment applications and challenges
Life cycle assessment is a technique that is used to evaluate the environmental

burdens associated with a product, process or service. The process includes:

0 The assemblage of all the inventory of resources (materials, energy used etc.) and

output (hazardous and non-hazardous emissions) related to every unit process.

0 Assessment of possible environmental impacts related to the inputs and outputs.

0 Interpretation of results.
LCA has a wide variety of applications in relation to a product or process. It can help in:

1. Quantifying the environmental burdens

2. Evaluating the specific environmental impacts

3. Selecting the product/process that would have less environmental burdens

4. Identifying the opportunities for improvements

5. Comparing two or more different products or systems

6. Designing new environmentally friendly products

7. Marketing
There can be some challenges related to LCA.

1. Data collection can be intensive and time consuming.

2. Availability of data can affect the accuracy of results.

31

3. Does not point out the impacts related to a product or process in a particular
region.

4. Does not incorporate market analysis.

5. It involves a number of assumptions.

6. It does not concentrate on social and economical aspects.

7. It does not determine the cost effectiveness of a product or process.

8. Lack of a widely accepted methodology for conducting LCA

[6,11,17,19]
2.9. Approach to current study

For this study, a cradle to grave approach was used for the Life Cycle
Assessment. All the inputs and outputs related to unit processes throughout the life cycle
of two packaging systems were organized and evaluated. The environmental burdens
related to both packaging systems were compared and the least burdensome packaging

system was chosen as a favorable system.

32

3. Comparative LCA of two ‘glass cleaner’ packaging systems

3.1. Introduction

This chapter presents information relating to a comparative life cycle assessment
of two different packaging systems for glass cleaners:

1. JAWS glass cleaner packaging system

2. Conventional glass cleaner [ackaging system

Keeping ISO’s LCA steps in mind, a comparative study between these two
packaging system is explained in this chapter. In the first section of this chapter, both
packaging systems are described in detail so that the reader can draw a clear mental
picture of the systems. The main objective and functional unit of this comparative LCA
study is explained in the second and third section. Finally, the life cycle inventory and
impacts related to both packaging systems are quantified and compared in the last section
of this chapter.
3.2. Description of packaging system and functional unit

1. JAWS Glass Cleaner System: J .A.W.S. Just Add Water System. This is an
innovative refillable system that is ideal for glass and other hard surface cleaning. This
“Just Add Water” concept was introduced by JAWS® International, Ltd. Holland
Sylvania Road, Toledo, OH 43615. This system can be very easy and simple to use.
This glass and other hard surface cleaning system required us to just add water to the
empty 32-oz. bottle, drop a cleaner cartridge into the bottle’s neck, then tighten the spray
handle on. The concentrated cleaner inside the cartridge is released into the water,

creating an excellent formula for cleaning tasks.

33

This system comes with refill cartridges, which means that when a consumer
finishes the glass cleaner solution, all s/he has to do is to remove the old cartridge, add
water and then add the new cartridge, and the system is ready to clean glasses and other
hard surfaces. The details of the packaging system are described below:

a) Primary:

i. Bottle system: PET bottles (32 oz), PP cartridges, PET blisters, PP labels,
paper insert, PP spray attachment, LDPE shrink wrap.

ii. Cartridge refill system: PP cartridges, PET blisters, PP labels, paper
inserts.

b) Distribution: Kraft corrugated boxes, low density polyethylene (LDPE) stretch

wrap, wood pallets.

2. Conventional Glass Cleaner System: The Conventional Glass Cleaner
System includes a 32-oz. bottle and a spray handle connected to the bottle. In this system,
there is no need to add water because the system comes with glass cleaning solution. The
details of the packaging system are described below:

a) Primary: PET bottles (32 oz), polypropylene (PP) film labels, and injection

molded PP spray attachments.

b) Distribution: kraft corrugated boxes, low density polyethylene (LDPE) stretch

wrap, wood pallets.

Functional Unit

Since this is a comparative life cycle assessment study between two package
systems, the basis of comparison should be equivalent. This can be related to weight or

volume. The basic unit of comparison used in this study is 32,000 ounces (equivalent to

34

1000 32-oz bottles) of glass cleaner. This will be referred to as the functional unit (FU).

Details of the package systems are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Individual components of the JAWS and conventional package systems

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Component weight (g) JAWS Conventional
PET bottle 48.1226 52.2470
PP oriented film labels for bottles (front and back) ‘ 2.0612 2.0612
PP injection-molded cartridge 13.0625
PP oriented film label for cartridge 0.4191
Paper insert for cartridge 0.71 14
PET blister 6.2687
PP injection molded spray system 33.9565 25.1600
Shrink wrap for bottle-cartridge system 7.2091
Corrugated shipper 635 451
Stretch wrap for 1 pallet load 200 200
Pallet 27216 27216

 

 

 

 

 

Weights for the JAWS primary package components are based on sample
components provided by the company. It is assumed that the primary package is shipped
with two cartridges, providing an initial filling plus one refill. The first cartridge is
snapped onto the bottle using the molded-in feature. Shrink wrap is used to bundle the
bottle and attached cartridge to the second cartridge. The amount of shrink wrap required
was calculated based on experiments run at the School of Packaging. (A picture of the
shrink- wrapped bottle with two cartridges can be found in Appendix D.) Additional refill
cartridges are packaged individually in PET blisters. Since the average number of refills

is uncertain, as it will reflect consumer behavior and product success, comparisons are

35

provided for averages of 10 and 20 fills per bottle. Both these values are well under the
measured lifetime of the spray attachment, according to the company.

Weights for the components of the conventional package are based on bottles
purchased at retail. A local store had 4 brands of glass (or glass and surface) cleaner for
sale in 32 oz. bottles. Two bottles of each brand were purchased and weighed. Details are
presented in Table A1 in Appendix A. It was assumed that the average label weights for
the bottles were identical to those in the JAWS system. Therefore the average weight of
the PET bottles was obtained by subtracting the label weight from the average weight of
the labeled bottles.

It should be noted that the weight of the JAWS bottles was nearly 8% less than
that of the average of the conventional bottles. Conventional bottle weights, after
subtracting for labels, ranged from a low of 49.9888 g to a high of 56.0860 g (averages of
2 bottles per brand). The lower weight of the individual JAWS bottles provides additional
environmental advantages, across the board, including reductions in energy use,
reductions in air and water pollutants, etc. These advantages are real, and therefore were
included in the analysis. I

The weight of the corrugated boxes for the JAWS system is based on a sample
provided by the company, designed to contain 12 bottles. It is assumed that the same size
and style of box is used for shipping of the cartridge refills, with a total of 200 cartridges
per box. The weight of the corrugated boxes for the conventional system is based on the
assumption that the same board configuration is used, but the size of the boxes is
somewhat smaller since the two refill cartridges in each JAWS system require extra

space. Therefore, a corrugated box obtained at a retail store (containing 12 bottles) was

36

used to determine the box size, and the weight from the JAWS box was adjusted
proportionally. Details of the calculations are presented in Appendix B.

The weight of pallet stretch wrap was calculated based on experiments carried out
at the School of Packaging (Appendix B). The weight of a pallet is based on average
weight of grocery pallets [31]. Weights of pallets and stretch wrap per load were assumed
to be identical for the JAWS and conventional systems.

From the basic information presented in Table 4, the weights of materials required
to deliver one functional unit (32,000 ounces of glass cleaner) can be obtained, and are
presented in Table 5. For the conventional packaging system, delivery of 32,000 ounces
of glass cleaner requires delivery of 1,000 PET bottles with labels, Sprayers, etc. For the
JAWS system, the requirements for delivery of 32,000 ounces of glass cleaner depend on
the average number of fills per bottles. If 10 fills per bottle are assumed, then delivery of
32,000 ounces of cleaner requires 100 of the bottle-plus-two-cartridge package systems,
plus an additional 800 cartridge/blister refill packages. If 20 fills per bottle are assumed,
then 50 bottle-plus-two-cartridge systems and 900 cartridge/blister refills are required.
Calculations for the weight of pallets and stretch wrap required per functional unit are
shown in Appendix B.

In Table 6, like materials are combined, to indicate the total amount of the various
materials required to deliver one functional unit of glass cleaner, hence facilitating
comparisons. Note that PET bottles and PET blisters remain separate from each other,
reflecting the difference in processing between stretch-blow-molded bottles and
thermoformed sheet. Similarly, injection molded PP spray attachments and cartridges

remain separate from PP film.

37

Table 5 Weight of packagin

components per functional unit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Component weight (g) Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
Bottle system

Bottle 52,247 4,812 2,406
Spray Attachment 25,160 3,396 1,698

Bottle Labels 2,061 206 103

Shrink Wrap 721 360

Blister 1,254 627
Cartridge 2,613 1,306

Insert 142 71

Label for cartridge 84 42
Box 37,613 4,233 2,117
Pallet 68,726 12,095 6,048

Stretch Wrap 505 89 44

Refill system

Blister 5,015 5,642
Cartridge 19,030 21,408

Insert 569 640

Label for cartridge 335 377
Box 2,540 2,858
Pallet 7,257 8,165

Stretch Wrap 53 60
Total* 186,312 64,444 53,972

 

*Entries may not add to total due to rounding

38

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6 Weight of packagin materials per functional unit, by material t e
Material weight (g) Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill

PET bottle 52,247 4,812 2,406
PET blister 0 6,269 6,269

PP film (labels) 2,061 625 522
PP injection molded 25,160 25,039 24,412

LDPE film 505 863 464

Bleached kraft paper 0 711 711
Corrugated box 37,613 6,773 4,975
Pallet 68,726 19,352 14,213
Total* 186,312 64,444 53,972

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Entries may not add to total due to rounding

3.3. Package System Life Cycle Inventory and Impacts
3.3.1. Overview

A modified life cycle approach was used to tabulate the inputs and outputs (the
inventory) associated with the alternative package systems. The general framework for
the life cycle inventory is shown in Figure 4. As indicated by the dashed lines, the filling,
retailer, and product consumption components were not included in the quantitative
analysis, due to lack of data, although they will be discussed qualitatively. Distribution
between the filler and the retailer was included in the analysis, but distribution between
container manufacturing and the filler was not, again due to lack of data. In the
disposal/recycling component, only the solid waste aspects were included. The use of
recycled content in container manufacture was not considered. The shaded area indicates
that material production, container production, and distribution between these segments

were all included as Container Manufacturing.

39

Container
Manufacturing

 

Material Production

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Distribution 1

, ..................... l

l Distribution 2

 

 

 

I

Container Production

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

......................... l

. Distribution] Retailer :

Product Consumption

Container
disposal/recycling

 

 

Distribution 3

 

 

 

 

Figure 4 Schematic of Life Cycle.

All inventory data was obtained from published sources, which are described
below. Inventory data reported includes the following:

a) Total energy

40

i. Electricity
ii. Oil
iii. Other

b) Greenhouse gas emissions

c) Air pollutant emissions

(1) Water pollutant emissions

e) Solid wastes

A variety of raw materials are used in manufacture of the container systems. A
complete tabulation of these materials is not included. Since the types of materials used
in the systems being compared are very similar, the differences in total mass between the
systems provide a reasonable indication of the differences in total raw materials used.
Altematively, total energy can be used as a surrogate measure for raw materials. This is
particularly appropriate in this case since all the major materials in the packaging systems
are based on oil, natural gas, and wood. Therefore, only minor components (e.g. some
catalysts, processing aids, etc.) which have no fuel value are not represented through their
energy values.

Information for plastics was obtained from “Eco-profiles” published by the
Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME), updated in March 2005. While
the precise values in these profiles to some extent reflect practices and conditions in
Europe, the general comparisons are valid for the United States. Up to date US. data was
available for LDPE, but not for PET and PP. Rather than combine data from different
sources obtained using somewhat different assumptions, for consistency all the plastics

data was obtained from a single source, APME (2005). Generic LDPE was used to

41

represent both stretch and shrink film. These eco—profiles include production of raw
materials, transportation of materials to the manufacturing point, and associated events
and operations. Eco-profiles used were those for stretch blow molded PET bottles,
injection molded polypropylene, polypropylene film, and LDPE film [32]. No profile was
available for thermoformed PET, so some data for PET film was used and adjusted as
explained in the sections that follow.

Information for energy requirements and air and water emissions for bleached
kraft paper for the cartridge inserts, corrugated boxes, and truck transport of containers
from the filler to the retailer was taken from a 2004 report published by the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality [33]. Corrugated boxes were assumed to have an
average of 38% post-consumer recycled content, which was determined to be typical for
the United States. Greenhouse gas emissions were not available from this source, so were
taken from the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (2006), assuming the same
recycled content (38%) for corrugated, and using office paper with a recycled content of
38% as a surrogate for bleached kraft packaging paper, as information for bleached kraft
packaging paper was not available. As is the case for plastics, these values include
production of raw materials, transportation of materials to the manufacturing point, and
associated events and operations.

Pallets were assumed to be made of softwood. They were included in calculating
the weight of the load for the Distribution 3 segment and in estimating solid waste
contributions, but energy consumption and emissions associated with pallet manufacture

and distribution were not otherwise included, due to lack of reliable data. Since pallets

42

may or may not be reusable (and may also be made of plastic or other materials), this

further complicates their inclusion in the analysis.

3.3.2. Energy consumption for package manufacture
Energy used was divided into 3 categories: electricity, oil fuels, and other fuels.
Figure 4 shows the energy required for the manufacturing of conventional packaging,

JAWS 10 fill, and JAWS 20 fill, MI per functional unit.

12000-
10000-

 
        

MJlfunctIonal unlt

\
\\ k

 

 

 

 

&

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 1
Electricity Oil Other Total
energy
IConventional HJAWS 10 fill EJAWS 20 fill

Figure 5 Comparison of the energy required for the manufacturing.

Overall energy consumption for manufacture of the packaging involved in the
three systems being compared is shown in the above figure. This does not include
transportation energy for the filled product to the retailer. The 10 fill JAWS system
requires less than 47% of the total energy of the conventional packaging, at this point in
the system; the 20 fill system requires less than 43%. Savings are significant in all 3

categories: electricity, oil fuels, and other fuels. Details showing the breakdown of the

43

energy use by product component can be found in Table A2 in Appendix A. Note that
pallets are not included in this tabulation, due to lack of reliable data.

It should be noted that information for energy requirements for thermoformed
PET sheet was not available; therefore values for PET film were used. These values were
increased by 10% as a conservatively high estimate of the energy requirements for
thermoformed PET blisters.

Because of the likely overestimation of the energy required for manufacture of the
PET blisters and the orrrission of the energy requirement for the additional pallets used in
the conventional system, the actual energy comparison will even more strongly favor the

JAWS system than is indicated here.

3.3.3. Transportation energy

Transportation energy requirements provide a further advantage for the JAWS
systems. The weight of filled containers transported to the retail store for the 3 systems
being compared is shown in Table 7. It is assumed that energy consumption by the trucks
is proportional to the weight being hauled [33].

Energy requirements (and emissions) for shipping depend on the transportation
distance. Table 8 presents results for shipping from the filler to the retailer, by truck, for
average distances of 500 and 1000 miles. A combination (tractor trailer) truck is
assumed, running on gasoline. Energy required for diesel trucks would be 12% higher;
energy required for single unit trucks running on gasoline would be 182% higher, and for

diesel 216% higher. Therefore, this is a conservative estimate.

Table 7 Total weights of filled package systems shipped to retailers, g per functional unit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weights, g Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
Packaging 186,313 64,445 53,972
Contents 908,000 10,725 10,725
Total weight l,094,3 13 75,170 64,697

 

Table 8 Energy requirements for shipping filled package systems to retailers, MJ per

functional unit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

System Total wt, kg Enlifizsfmoo Enguglyestolzfim
Conventional 1094 832 1664
JAWS 10 fill 75 57 114
JAWS 20 fill 65 49 98

 

 

 

As can be seen, the longer the average transportation distance, the greater is the

energy savings using the JAWS systems. The 10 fill JAWS system uses less than 8% of

the shipping energy used by the conventional system, and the 20 fill system less than 7%.

This reflects the large mass of water shipped in the conventional system. It could be

argued that the actual savings is somewhat less, since the water must be added at some

point. However, transportation of water to the home by pipeline, as is the case in the

JAWS system, requires only a miniscule amount of energy compared to transportation of

the water to the retail store by truck, so these comparisons are valid. Further, there is

additional energy savings associated with transport of the containers to the home, which

would compensate for the pipeline energy use for water.

45

 

2000 1

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E
F 1600 - §
3 ,
g 1200 -
> 800 4
i
u 400 - ;
0 I . k " ' ' ' .
Energy for 500 miles Energy for 1000
mlles

IConventlonal EJAWS 10 till EJAWS 20 till

Figure 6 Comparison of energy used in transportation

Overall transportation energy for 500 miles and 1000 miles for both packaging
systems is presented graphically in figure 6.
3.3.4. Greenhouse gas emissions

Greenhouse gas emissions were calculated for manufacture of the conventional,
JAWS 10 fill, and JAWS 20 fill package systems. Results are shown in Table 9, as
carbon dioxide equivalents. Pallets and distribution from the filler to the retailer are not
included. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with container manufacture for the 10 fill
JAWS system are less than 45% of those for the conventional system, and for the 20 fill

JAWS system are less than 40% of those for the conventional system.

46

Table 9 Greenhouse gas emissions in kg C02 equivalents per functional unit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Component Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
PET bottle 293 27 13
PET blister 0 48 48
PP film (labels) 7 2 2
PP inj mold 133 133 129
LDPE film 2 3 1
Bleached kraft paper 0 2 2
Corrugated box 87 16 11
Total 521 230 207

 

Because of the omission of greenhouse gas emissions associated with pallet

manufacture and with transportation from the filler to the retailer, actual greenhouse gas

emission reductions for the JAWS systems will be even greater than is presented here.

kglfunctlonal unlt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IConventional EJAWS 10 fill EJAWS 20 fill|

 

Figure 7 Comparison of greenhouse gases

47

 

Overall greenhouse gas emissions for the systems being compared are presented

graphically in Figure 7 above.

3.3.5. Air pollutant emission

Emissions of air pollutants from the conventional and JAWS systems are
compared in the following tables. Table 10 details the major emissions from production
of the plastics materials in the packaging systems (details by component are in tables A3
to A7 in Appendix A). Table 11 shows the emissions from the paper components (details
are in tables A8 and A9 in Appendix A). Since, as discussed, no information was
available specifically for thermoformed PET, emissions for PET film were used. These
values were increased by 10% as a conservatively high estimate of the emissions
associated with thermoformed PET blisters. As before, pallets are not included due to
lack of reliable data.

It is generally agreed that summing of various types of emissions in a life cycle
analysis is an unwise practice; therefore no sums are provided here. It can easily be noted
that emissions for the JAWS systems are lower than those for the conventional systems in
all cases. Comparisons for the major air emissions (particulates, carbon monoxide, sulfur
oxides, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons) are presented in Figure 8. Reductions in air
emissions for these components range from 56 to 66% for the 10 fill JAWS system, and

are even larger for the 20 fill system. Data is provided in Table A10 in Appendix A.

48

Table 10 Major air emissions from production of plastics materials in packaging systems,

g per functional unit

 

Total emissions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

( g/func tion a] unit) Conventional Jaws l0 fill Jaws 20 fill
particulates (PMlO) 187.02 73.78 65.68
CO 872.25 420.25 384.36
SOx as 802 1137.21 468.75 419.26
NOx as N02 754.38 356.74 324.85
HCl 22.14 9.13 8.19
HF 0.79 0.33 0.30
hydrocarbons not specified 587.37 226.88 200.57
organics 17.86 5.20 4.34
metals. 0.24 0.13 0.12
H2 27.37 11.10 9.96
aromatic HC not specified 21.55 6.26 5.31
NMVOC* 63.52 12.88 9.78
ethylene C2H4 0.16 0.07 0.07
propylene 0.08 0.04 0.03

 

49

 

Table 11 Major air emissions from production of paper material in packaging systems, g

er functional unit.

 

Total emissions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(g/functional unit) Conventional Jaws 10 fill Jaws 20 fill
particulates 73.35 14.39 10.89
CO 151.96 28.06 20.80
SOx 221.54 43.72 33.13
NOx 130.52 27.65 21.41
HCl 0.00 0.00 0.00
hydrocarbons not specified 0.75 0.14 0.11
organics 0.00 0.07 0.07
metals 0.00 0.00 0.00
aldehydes 0.23 0.04 0.03
odorous sulfur 1.09 0.21 0.16
reduced sulfur 0.00 0.03 0.03
ammonia 1.69 0.33 0.25
chlorine 0.00 0.01 0.01

 

50

 

V

i

g per functional unit
§ §

 

 

particulates CO 80): N0): hydrocarbons
[Conventional IJAWS 10 till EJJAWS 20 fill]

Figure 8 Comparisons of major air emissions

 

 

Further reductions in air emissions for the JAWS systems compared to the
conventional system would arise from the reduction in transportation requirements.
Reductions in air emissions would generally be proportional to reductions in energy
consumption, and are not detailed here, but are included in Appendix C for both gasoline

and diesel.

3.3.6. Water emission

Emissions of water pollutants from the conventional and JAWS systems are
compared in the following tables. Table 12 details the major emissions from production
of the plastics materials in the packaging systems (details by component are in tables A1 1
to A15 in Appendix A). Table 13 shows the emissions from the paper components
(details are in tables A16 and A17 in Appendix A). As was done for air emissions, water
emissions for thermoformed PET were conservatively estimated (high estimate) by
increasing the emissions for PET film manufacture by 10%. Estimates for pallets are not

included due to lack of data.

51

Table 12 Major water emissions from production of plastics materials in packaging
systems, g per functional unit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total enrissiplrifitgg/ functional Conventional Jaws 10 fill Jaws 20 fill
COD (chemical oxygen demand) 70.40 22.48 19.17
BOD (biological oxygen demand) 105.38 17.33 12.47

Na+ compounds as Na 13.15 4.17 3.56
acid as H+ 0.42 0.49 0.47
NO3- 3.42 3.18 3.08

metals not specified elsewhere 1.30 0.48 0.42

ammonium compounds as NH4+ 0.35 0.18 0.16
CI- 15.67 6.56. 5.86

dissolved organic not specified 1.19 0.47 0.41
suspended solids 33.34 14.47 12.97
detergent/oil 1.46 0.62 0.56
hydrocarbons not specified 5.89 1.17 0.89
phenols 0.1 1 0.06 0.06

dissolved solids not specified 8.49 2.24 1.85
other nitrogen as N 0.15 0.06 0.05

other organics not specified 18.32 6.28 5.49
SO4-- 44.13 28.66 26.93

TOC (toxic organic compounds) 2.39 0.60 0.49
CO3-- 5.04 1.72 1.48

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

Table 13 Major water emissions from production of paper materials in packaging

systems, g per functional unit.

 

Total emissions (g/functional

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

unit) Conventional Jaws 10 fill Jaws 20 fill

COD (chemical oxygen demand) 345.66 75.08 53.68
BOD (biological oxygen demand) 92.15 21.20 15.50
phosphorus 1.20 0.32 0.25
phosphates 2.82 0.63 0.45

acid 0.53 0.1 1 0.08

metals not specified elsewhere 6.13 1.28 0.90
ammonia 0.87 0.38 0.33

nitrogen 1.28 0.29 0.21

phenols 0.03 0.01 0.00
suspended solids 114.34 28.20 21.12
dissolved solids 5.64 1.37 1.02

oil 2.71 0.56 0.40

sulfides 2.71 0.56 0.40

cyanide 0.00 0.00 0.00

sodium dichromate 0.00 0.00 0.00
nitrates 0.05 0.01 0.01

 

Again emissions for the JAWS systems are lower than those for the conventional

systems in all cases. Comparisons for the major water emissions (chemical oxygen

demand, biological oxygen demand, and suspended solids) for conventional and JAWS

systems (omitting pallets) are presented in Figure 9. Reductions in emissions for these

components are over 70% in all cases. Data is provided in Table A18 in Appendix A.

53

 

i

28"?

per functional unit

@100-

 

 

 

 

suspended solids

 

 

IConventional EJAWS 1o fiTI IZIJAWS 20 W

Figure 9 Comparisons of major water emissions

 

Further reductions in water emissions for the JAWS systems compared to the
conventional system would arise from the reduction in transportation requirements.
Reductions in water emissions would generally be proportional to reductions in energy
consumption, and are not detailed here, but are included in Appendix C for both gasoline

and diesel.

3.3.7. Solid waste

The effects of solid waste reductions for the JAWS system are strongly dependent
on the prevailing recycling habits and rates. The recycling rates for the relevant materials
used for purposes of estimation are shown in Table 14. The rates for PET bottles and for

corrugated boxes represent the current average recycling rates in the US. [34, 35]

54

Table 14 Recovery/recycling rates used for estimation of solid waste contributions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recovery/recycling rates used for Percent
estimation

PET bottles 23.5
PET blisters 0

Corrugated Box 78.3

LDPE Stretch Wrap 78.3
PP sprayers, labels, cartridges 0
LDPE shrink wrap 0

Wood pallets 78.3

 

 

 

 

The recycling rate for wooden pallets was 15.4% in 2003, according to the EPA.
However, this does not include reuse of pallets, which can be substantial, but is also
highly variable, depending on the type of pallet used and the system employed. Because
of this lack of data, a combined recovery and recycling rate equal to that for corrugated
was used for pallets. No specific data was found on stretch wrap recycling. Pallet stretch
wrap is recycled much more than other types of film.

The overall recycling rate for plastic film in 2003 was less than 6%. Since this
significantly underestimates recycling of pallet stretch wrap, a recycling rate equal to that
for corrugated boxes was assumed, as had been done for the wood pallets. This
overestimates the actual recycling rate. For LDPE shrink wrap, on the other hand, there
are almost no recycling opportunities in the US. Therefore, a recycling rate of 0 was
assumed for this material. Similarly, there are virtually no recycling opportunities for the
PP sprayers or for the PP cartridges, so recycling rates were also estimated at 0 for these

materials. The bottle labels will be collected and processed at the same rate as the PET

55

bottles to which they are attached. However, the labels become a waste material at the
processing facility, so a recycling rate of 0 was also used for the PP labels. PET blisters
are potentially recoverable, but they are generally not accepted in PET bottle recycling
collection systems, so a recycling rate of 0 was also used. for the PET blisters.

Table 15 Estimated solid waste contributions after recycling, g per functional unit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Solid waste after
recycling/recovery Conventional Jaws 10 fill Jaws 20 fill
(g/functional unit)
PET bottle 39969 3681 1841
PET blister 0 6269 6269
PP film (labels) 2061 625 522
PP inj mold 25160 25039 24412
LDPE stretch wrap 110 31 23
LDPE shrink film 0 721 360
Bleached kraft paper 0 71 l 711
Corrugated box 8162 1470 1164
Pallet 14914 4 199 3084
Total 90375 42746 38301

 

 

Using these recycling rates, the estimated solid waste contributions per functional
units were calculated, and are presented in Table 15. Recovery amounts are presented in
Table A21 in Appendix A. Figure 10 shows the overall solid waste contribution after

recycling and recovery for all systems.

56

 

     
  
   
    

   
   
     

  

 

 

 

90 ..
:2 30 .
C
3 70 -
:=: ..
i 5.
'3 “i 55755
S 30 . will»:
a, ”I”!
a: 20 _ Iii!!!
””0
”a”
1o- \ were
0 K III” .

 

 

 

IConventional IJAWS 10 fill BJAWS 20 fill

Figure 10 Comparisons of overall estimated solid waste

 

 

 

As can be seen, the JAWS system provides a significant reduction in solid waste
going to landfill, even with the conservative assumptions used. Reduction in solid wastes
. is more than 52% for the 10 fill JAWS system, and more than 57% for the 20 fill system.
Reductions in waste would be even larger if a return and refill or recycle system were
implemented for the JAWS cartridges. In addition, packaging the refill cartridges in
multi-packs of 2 or more cartridges would significantly cut down on solid wastes, as the

PET blisters do not double or triple in size if the number of cartridges doubles or triples.

57

4. Limitations and Qualitative Discussions

As is common in analyses of this type, this study does not include resource use
and emissions associated with manufacture of processing equipment and other ancillary
operations. Such contributions are generally very small, contributing less to the overall
impacts than the magnitude of the uncertainty in the main data.

More significantly, this study does not include impacts associated with the filling
operation, with handling of materials, or with warehousing of packaging materials and
finished products. Transportation of such materials is included only to a limited extent.
Most impacts associated with the manufacture and use of pallets are also not included, as
discussed earlier. It is expected that all of these factors, if included, would further favor
the JAWS systems. For example, for the filling operation, it is expected that the energy
requirements for putting the much smaller amount of liquid into the cartridges will be less
than that required for putting the much larger amount of liquid into the conventional
bottles. Certainly less space will be required for warehousing the cartridges than the
bottles, and less energy will be consumed by forklifts, heating and cooling of warehouses
and other storage space, etc. Any savings in energy consumption will bring with it
savings in emissions of greenhouse gases and of air and water pollutants. Similarly, less
solid waste going to disposal from the JAWS system means less transport energy and
emissions associated with disposal.

It is assumed that plastics used are virgin resin. If recycled resins were used, this
would likely save energy and reduce emissions. We did not attempt to quantify these
potential effects, which could apply both to the conventional and to the JAWS systems.

(The effect of recycled content in corrugated boxes is included, as indicated earlier.)

58

As discussed, refill of the cartridges would reduce solid waste impacts. If such a
system were implemented, it would also likely result in savings in energy use and
greenhouse gas emissions. These potential effects are not included in the analysis
presented here.

It should be noted that information for energy requirements, air emissions and
water for thermoformed PET sheet was not available; therefore values for PET film were
used. These values were increased by 10% as a conservatively high estimate of the
energy requirements, air emission and water emission for thermoformed PET blisters.
Because of the likely overestimation of the energy required for manufacture of the PET
blisters, air emission and water emission, the actual comparisons will even more strongly
favor the JAWS system than is indicated here.

We did not examine JAWS systems averaging greater than 20 fills, although the
trigger spray is robust enough to handle a significantly larger number, and the bottle
should also be able to do 50. An indication of the effects of a larger number of refills is
provided by the comparison between the 10 fill and 20 fill systems. As the average
number of refills increases, the differences between the conventional and the JAWS

system also increase, further favoring JAWS.

59

5. Conclusion and Recommendation for future work
Based on the limitations discussed above, following is the summary of results

obtained from the comparative life cycle analysis done between conventional packaging
system and JAWS packaging system.
Summary:

1. The 10 fill JAWS system requires less than 47% of the total energy of

conventional packaging and the 20 fill system requires less than 43%.

2. The 10 fill JAWS system uses less than 8% of the shipping energy used by the

conventional system, and the 20 fill system less than 7%, reflecting the large mass of

water shipped in the conventional system.

3. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with container manufacture for the 10 fill

JAWS system are less than 45% of those for the conventional system, and for the 20

fill JAWS system are less than 40% of those for the conventional system.

4. Reduction in major air emissions (particulate, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides,

nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons) ranges from 56 to 66% for the 10 fill JAWS

system, and even larger for the 20 fill system.

5. Reductions in major water emissions (chemical oxygen demand, biological

oxygen demand, and suspended solids) are over 70% in both JAWS system.

6. Reduction in solid waste is more than 52% for the 10 fill JAWS system, and more

than 57% for the 20 fill system.

Despite some limitations of the study, the message is clear. The JAWS system

provides significant environmental benefits across an array of categories, compared to

conventional packaging for window cleaner. The assumptions used in this analysis were

60

chosen to minimize, rather than to add to, the differences between the systems. Therefore,
actual differences are even larger than those presented here. This analysis was done
specifically for window cleaner. However, the results are applicable, with only minor
modification, to a variety of types of cleaners sold in similar packages.

Whether it is the energy use or the emissions, the JAWS packaging system comes
out as a favorable choice compared with the conventional packaging system.
Recommendations for future work:

Though this study showed that the JAWS glass cleaner packaging system is a
preferred choice in comparison to the conventional packaging system, there is additional
useful research that can be done.

1. Since most of the omitted segments were not taken into consideration because of
the lack of appropriate data, it is recommended to do this study using LCA
software. The quality data can be taken from the databases/libraries of LCA
software, which would help in quantifying detailed inventory, impacts and results.

2. Comparisons of bottles in other sizes were not included in this analysis. Therefore
another opportunity of future work could be a similar LCA study between bottles
of different sizes.

3. People also reuse the conventional packaging system by refilling it with the glass
cleaner solution bought in bulk bottles without sprayers. So, a similar study;
comparing the JAWS packaging system to the conventional packaging system

with the refill option would be an interesting approach.

61

4. Since consumer behavior is an important factor for the success of any product, a
study focusing on consumer’s acceptance of the JAWS packaging system can
really support the potential of the JAWS concept.

5. The JAWS concept requires use of concentrated cleaning solution, which may be
harmful for a consumer in case of leakage. Thus a study considering the safety
aspects related to the JAWS packaging system can ensure the protective function

of this JAWS high performance packaging technology.

62

Appendices

6.1. Appendix A - Data Tables

Table A 1 Weights of Glass Cleaner Bottles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bottle weight (g)
Brand Sprayer weight (g)
(including labels)
Brand 1 — 1 53.9592 28.9699
Brand 1 — 2 53.0484 29.1215
Brand 2 — 1 53.4054 28.7894
Brand 2 — 2 53.6573 28.9087
Brand 3 —1 58.1779 21.1991
Brand 3 — 2 58.1165 21.2200
Brand 4 — 1 52.0254 21.6632
Brand 4 — 2 52.0746 21.4083
Average 54.3081 25.1600

 

Brands 1,2 and 4 are national brands; brand 3 is a store brand.

63

 

Table A 2 Energy Requirements for Packaging Manufacture - Electricity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Electricity per functional unit,
Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
MJ

PET bottle 2056 189 95

PET blister* 0 228 228

PP oriented film labels 48 15 12
PP inj.mold. 809 805 785

LDPE film 10 17 9

Paper 0 8 8
Corrugated boxes 249 45 33

Total 3172 1307 1170
Table A 3 Energy Requirements for Packaging Manufacture — Oil fuels
Oil fuels per functional unit, JAWS 10
Conventional JAWS 20 fill
MJ fill

PET bottle 1707 157 79
PET blister* 0 225 225
PP oriented film labels 98 30 25

PP inj.mold. 1188 1183 1153

LDPE film 419 33 18

Paper 0 5 5
Corrugated boxes 18 3 2

3032 1637 1508

Total

 

 

 

 

 

64

 

 

Table A 4 Energy Requirements for Packaging Manufacture — Other fuels

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other fuels per functional unit, JAWS 10
Conventional JAWS 20 fill
MJ fill

PET bottle 1667 154 77
PET blister* 0 299 299

PP oriented film labels 58 18 15
PP inj.mold. 898 894 871

LDPE film 16 27 15

Paper 0 26 26
Corrugated boxes 819 147 108
Total 3458 1564 1410

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Values obtained by multiplying amounts for PET film by 1.1

65

Table A 5 Air emissions per functional unit, for PET bottles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G per functional unit Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
particulates (PM 10) 141.0669 12.9924 6.4962
CO 574.717 52.932 26.466
SOx as SO; 835.952 76.992 38.496
NOx as N02 512.0206 47.1576 23.5788
HCl 16.19657 1.49172 0.74586
HF 0.574717 0.052932 0.026466
hydrocarbons not specified 449.3242 41.3832 20.6916
Organics 16.19657 1.49172 0.74586
metals not specified
0.156741 0.014436 0.007218
elsewhere
H2 19.33139 1.78044 0.89022
aromatic HC not specified 18.80892 1.73232 0.86616
NMVOC (non-methane
62.6964 5.7744 2.8872
volatile organic compounds)
ethylene (C2H4) 0.104494 0.009624 0.004812
Propylene 0.052247 0.0048 1 2 0.002406

 

66

 

Table A 6 Air emissions per functional unit, for PET bliseters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G per functional unit Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
particulates (PMlO) 0 16.55016 16.55016
CO 0 82.7508 82.7508
SOx as $02 0 103.4385 103.4385
NOx as N02 0 75.8549 75.8549
HCl 0 1.930852 1.930852
HF 0 0.068959 0.068959
hydrocarbons not specified 0 58.61515 58.61515
Organics 0 2.06877 2.06877
metals not specified
0 0.0344795 0.0344795
elsewhere
H2 0 1.586057 1.586057
aromatic HC not specified 0 1.930852 1.930852
NMVOC (non-methane
0 6.137351 6.137351
volatile organic compounds)
ethylene (C2H4) 0 0.012538 0.012538
Propylene 0 0.006269 0.006269

 

* Estimated by increasing values for PET film by 10%

67

 

Table A 7 Air emissions per functional unit, for PP film

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G per functional unit Conventional JAWS l0 fill JAWS 20 fill
particulates (PM10) 2.6793 0.8125 0.6786
CO 18.7551 5.6875 4.7502
SOx as 802 20.61 6.25 5.22
NOx as N02 13.3965 4.0625 3.393
HCl 0.35037 0.10625 0.08874
HF 0.012366 0.00375 0.003132
hydrocarbons not specified 8.8623 2.6875 2.2446
Organics 0.1 19538 0.03625 0.030276
metals not specified
0.008244 0.0025 0.002088
elsewhere
H2 0.43281 0.13125 0.10962
aromatic HC not specified 0.2061 0.0625 0.0522
NMVOC (non-methane
0.039159 0.01 1875 0.009918
volatile organic compounds)
ethylene (C2H4) 0.004122 0.00125 0.001044
Propylene 0.002061 0.000625 0.000522

 

68

 

Table A 8 Air emissions per functional unit, for PP injection molded (sprayers and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cartridges)
G per functional unit Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill

particulates (PM10) 42.772 42.5663 41.5004

CO 276.76 275.429 268.532

SOx as SO; 276.76 275.429 268.532

NOx as NO; 226.44 225.351 219.708

HCl 5.5352 5.50858 5.37064
HF 0.20128 0.200312 0.195296
hydrocarbons not specified 118.252 117.6833 114.7364
Organics 1.45928 1.452262 1.415896

metals not specified
0.07548 0.0751 17 0.073236
elsewhere
H2 7.548 7.5117 7.3236
aromatic HC not specified 2.516 2.5039 2.4412
NMVOC (non-methane
0.52836 0.525819 0.512652
volatile organic compounds)

ethylene (C2H4) 0.05032 0.050078 0.048824
Propylene 0.02516 0.025039 0.024412

 

 

 

 

 

69

 

Table A 9 Air emissions per functional unit, for LLDPE film

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G per functional unit Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
particulates (PM 10) 0.49995 0.85437 0.45936
CO 2.02 3.452 1.856
SOx as 802 3.8885 6.6451 3.5728
NOx as N02 2.525 4.315 2.32
HCl 0.05555 0.09493 0.05104
HF 0.00202 0.003452 0.001856
hydrocarbons not specified 2.2725 3.8835 2.088
Organics 0.08585 0.14671 0.07888
metals not specified
0.00101 0.001726 0.000928
elsewhere
H2 0.05555 0.09493 0.05104
aromatic HC not specified 0.01919 0.032794 0.017632
NMVOC (non-methane
0.2525 0.4315 0.232
volatile organic compounds)
ethylene (C2H4) 0.000505 0.000863 0.000464
Propylene 0.000505 0.000863 0.000464

 

70

 

Table A 10 Air emissions per functional unit, for corrugated boxes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G per functional unit Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
Particulates 73.34535 13.20735 9.70125
CO 151.95652 27.36292 20.099
SOx 221.54057 39.89297 29.30275
NOx 130.51711 23.50231 17.26325
HCl 1.88065E-06 3.3865E-07 2.4875E-07
hydrocarbons not specified 0.75226 0.13546 0.0995
Organics 0.000349801 6.29889E-05 4.62675E-05
metals not specified
0.00188065 0.00033865 0.00024875
elsewhere
Aldehydes 0.225678 0.040638 0.02985
odorous sulfur 1.090777 0.196417 0.144275
reduced sulfur 0 0 0
Ammonia 1.692585 0.304785 0.223875
Chlorine 1.76781E—05 3.18331E—06 2.33825E-06

 

71

 

Table A 11 Air emissions per functional unit, for paper inserts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G per functional unit Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
Particulates 0 1.18737 1.18737
CO 0 0.69678 0.69678
SOx 0 3.82518 3.82518
NOx 0 4.14513 4.14513
HCl 0 0 0
hydrocarbons not specified 0 0.007821 0.007821
Organics 0 0.066834 0.066834
metals not specified
0 0.000013509 0.000013509
elsewhere
Aldehydes 0 2.6307E-06 2.6307E-06
odorous sulfur 0 0.01422 0.01422
reduced sulfur 0 0.02844 0.02844
Ammonia 0 0.02844 0.02844
Chlorine 0 0.010665 0.010665

 

72

 

Table A 12 Comparison of major air emissions per functional unit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G per functional unit Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
Particulates 260.36 88.17 76.57
CO 1024.21 448.31 405.15
SOx 1358.75 512.47 452.39
NOx 884.90 384.39 346.26
hydrocarbons 588.12 227.02 200.68

 

73

 

Table A 13 Water emissionyer functional unit, for PET bottles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G per functional unit Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
COD (chemical oxygen demand) 62.6964 5.7744 2.8872
BOD (biological oxygen
104.494 9.624 4.812
demand)
N a+compounds as Na 11.49434 1.05864 0.52932
acid as H+ 0.313482 0.028872 0.014436
NO3- 0.156741 0.014436 0.007218
metals not specified elsewhere 1.04494 0.09624 0.04812
ammonium compounds as NH4+ 0.208988 0.019248 0.009624
Cl- 1 1.49434 1.05864 0.52932
dissoved organic not specified 0.888199 0.081804 0.040902
suspended solids 22.98868 2.11728 1.05864
detergent/oil 1 .04494 0.09624 0.048 12
hydrocarbons not specified 5.74717 0.52932 0.26466
Phenols 0.052247 0.004812 0.002406
dissolved solids not specified 7.83705 0.7218 0.3609
other nitrogen as N 0.104494 0.009624 0.004812
other organics not specified 15.6741 1.4436 0.7218
SO4-- 18.28645 1.6842 0.8421
TOC (toxic organic compounds) 2.142127 0.197292 0.098646
CO3-- 4.232007 0.389772 0.194886

 

74

 

Table A 14 Water emissions per functional unit, for PET blisters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G per functional unit Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
COD (chemical oxygen demand) 0 9.65426 9.65426
BOD (biological oxygen
0 6.8959 6.8959
demand)
Na+compounds as Na 0 1.517098 1.517098
acid as H+ 0 0.357333 0.357333
N03- 0 0.081497 0.081497
metals not specified elsewhere 0 0.137918 0.137918
ammonium compounds as NH4+ 0 0.025076 0.025076
Cl- 0 1.517098 1.517098
dissoved organic not specified 0 0.094035 0.094035
suspended solids 0 2.482524 2.482524
detergent/oil 0 0. 13 1649 0.131649
hydrocarbons not specified 0 0.50152 0.50152
Phenols 0 0.006269 0.006269
dissolved solids not specified 0 0.896467 0.896467
other nitrogen as N 0 0.012538 0.012538
other organics not specified 0 2.344606 2.344606
SO4-- 0 2.413565 2.413565
TOC (toxic organic compounds) 0 0.156725 0.156725
CO3-- 0 0.545403 0.545403

 

* Estimated by increasing values for PET film by 10%

75

 

Table A 15 Water emissions per functional unit, for PP labels

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G per functional unit Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
COD (chemical oxygen demand) 1.15416 0.35 0.29232
BOD (biological oxygen
0.121599 0.036875 0.030798
demand)
N a+compounds as Na 0.127782 0.03875 0.032364
acid as H+ 0.006183 0.001875 0.001566
NO3- 0.24732 0.075 0.06264
metals not specified elsewhere 0.022671 0.006875 0.005742
ammonium compounds as N H4+ 0.010305 0.003125 0.00261
Cl- 0.32976 0.1 0.08352
dissoved organic not specified 0.022671 0.006875 0.005742
suspended solids 0.84501 0.25625 0.21402
detergent/oil 0.030915 0.009375 0.00783
hydrocarbons not specified 0.010305 0.003125 0.00261
Phenols 0.004122 0.00125 0.001044
dissolved solids not specified 0.051525 0.015625 0.01305
other nitrogen as N 0.012366 0.00375 0.003132
other organics not specified 0.201978 0.06125 0.051156
SO -- 1.93734 0.5875 0.49068
TOC (toxic organic compounds) 0.018549 0.005625 0.004698
C03-- 0.059769 0.018125 0.015138

 

76

 

Table A 16 Water emissions per functional unit, for in'ection molded PP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G per functional unit Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
COD (chemical oxygen demand) 6.29 6.25975 6.103
BOD (biological oxygen
0.72964 0.726131 0.707948
demand)

Na+compounds as Na 1.48444 1.477301 1.440308
acid as H+ 0.10064 0.100156 0.097648
NO3- 3.0192 3.00468 2.92944
metals not specified elsewhere 0.22644 0.225351 0.219708
ammonium compounds as NH4+ 0.1258 0.125195 0.12206

Cl- 3.774 3.75585 3.6618
dissoved organic not specified 0.27676 0.275429 0.268532
suspended solids 9.3092 9.26443 9.03244
detergent/oil 0.3774 0.375585 0.36618
hydrocarbons not specified 0.1258 0.125195 0.12206
Phenols 0.05032 0.050078 0.048824
dissolved solids not specified 0.57868 0.575897 0.561476
other nitrogen as N 0.02516 0.025039 0.024412
other organics not specified 2.44052 2.428783 2.367964
SO4-— 23.6504 23.53666 22.94728
TOC (toxic organic compounds) 0.22644 0.225351 0.219708
CO3-- 0.72964 0.726131 0.707948

 

77

 

Table A 17 Water emissions per functional unit, for LDPE film

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G per functional unit Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
COD (chemical oxygen demand) 0.25755 0.44013 0.23664
BOD (biological oxygen
0.029795 0.050917 0.027376
demand)
Na+compounds as Na 0.04545 0.07767 0.04176
acid as H+ 0.002525 0.004315 0.00232
NO3- 0.001515 0.002589 0.001392
metals not specified elsewhere 0.00606 0.010356 0.005568
ammonium compounds as NH4+ 0.001515 0.002589 0.001392
Cl- 0.07575 0.12945 0.0696
dissoved organic not specified 0.005555 0.009493 0.005104
suspended solids 0.202 0.3452 0.1856
detergent/oil 0.00606 0.010356 0.005568
hydrocarbons not specified 0.003535 0.006041 0.003248
Phenols 0.00101 0.001726 0.000928
dissolved solids not specified 0.018685 0.031931 0.017168
other nitrogen as N 0.00303 0.005178 0.002784
other organics not specified 0 0 0
SO -- 0.25755 0.44013 0.23664
TOC (toxic organic compounds) 0.00707 0.012082 0.006496
CO3-- 0.02121 0.036246 0.019488

 

78

 

Table A 18 Water emissions per functional unit, for corrugated boxes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G per functional unit Conventional JAWS l0 fill JAWS 20 fill
COD (chemical oxygen
345.66347 71.97608 50.58176
demand)
BOD (biological oxygen
92.15185 19.1884 13.4848
demand)
Phosphorus 1.203616 0.250624 0.176128
Phosphates 2.820975 0.5874 0.4128
Acid 0.526582 0.109648 0.077056
metals not specified
6.130919 1.276616 0.897152
elsewhere
Ammonia 0.865099 0.180136 0.126592
Nitrogen 1.278842 0.266288 0.187136
Phenols 0.03234718 0.00673552 0.00473344
suspended solids 114.34352 23.80928 16.73216
dissolved solids 5.64195 1.1748 0.8256
Oil 2.708136 0.563904 0.396288
Sulfides 2.708136 0.563904 0.396288
Cyanide 3.7613E-06 7.832E-07 , 5.504E-07
sodium dichromate 0 0 0
Nitrates 0.045 1356 0.0093984 0.0066048

 

79

 

Table A 19 Water emissions per functional unit, for paper inserts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G per functional unit Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
COD (chemical oxygen demand) 0 3.09996 3.09996
BOD (biological oxygen
0 2.01213 2.01213
demand)
phosphorus 0 0.071 1 0.071 1
phosphates 0 0.041949 0.041949
Acid 0 0.002133 0.002133
metals not specified elsewhere 0 0.00001422 0.00001422
Ammonia 0 0. 19908 0. 19908
Nitrogen 0 0.027729 0.027729
Phenols 0 3.9816E-08 3.9816E-08
suspended solids 0 4.38687 4.38687
dissolved solids 0 0.19908 0.19908
Oil 0 0.000036972 0.000036972
Sulfides 0 3.6972E-06 3.6972E-06
Cyanide 0 7.821E-08 7.821E-08
sodium dichromate 0 2.4174E-06 2.4174E-06
Nitrates 0 0 0

 

 

 

 

80

 

Table A 20 Comparison of major water emissions per functional unit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G per functional unit Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
COD (chemical oxygen
416.06 97.55 72.86
demand)
BOD (biological oxygen
197.53 38.53 27.97
demand)
suspended solids 147.69 42.66 34.09
Table A 21 Recovery and recycling of packaging materials
G per functional unit Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
PET bottle 12278 1131 565

PET blister 0 0 0

PP film (labels) 0 0 0

PP inj mold 0 0 0

LDPE stretch wrap 395 111 81

LDPE shrink film 0 0 0

Bleached kraft paper 0 0 0
Corrugated box 29451 5303 3895
Pallet 53812 15153 15671
Total 95937 21698 15671

 

 

 

 

 

81

 

 

6.2. Appendix B - Corrugated Box, Pallet and Stretch Wrap Calculations
l. Corrugated Box

The corrugated box used for shipping the JAWS bottle plus two cartridge system
weighed 635 g and contained 15 bottles. The perimeter of the box measured 21.5” x
14.375”.

To arrive at a weight for the boxes for the conventional system, it was assumed
that the same corrugated board would be used, and that the box height would be the same.
The area is smaller due to the configuration (no space for blisters required). The
measured length and width of a box for the conventional bottles was 13.875” x 11.625”.

Therefore, the weight of the conventional box, containing 12 bottles, was
calculated by multiplying the weight of the JAWS box by the ratio of the perimeters,
giving a value of 451.359 g/box

2. Pallets

Pallets were assumed to weigh 27.2155 kg each.

For the conventional system, 12 bottles (or 200 cartridge refills) are packaged per
corrugated box ( 13.875” x 11.625” in perimeter). 11 boxes per layer fit on a standard
pallet, and are stacked 3 high, for a total of 33 boxes per pallet. This equals 396 bottles
per pallet load.

Because the JAWS boxes are larger (21.5” x 14.375” perimeter), only 5 boxes fit
per pallet layer, for a total of 15 boxes per pallet, or a total of 180 bottles or 3000

cartridges.

82

3. Stretch wrap
Experiments were performed at the School of Packaging. It was detemrined that
the weight of stretch wrap for a 40” by 40” pallet was 0.4 lbs, 181 g. Since the
distribution system uses 40” x 48” pallets, this amount was increased in proportion to the
perimeter, for a total of 200 g stretch wrap per pallet
4. Weights per package system
Table A22 shows the weights of secondary packaging per bottle, for the
conventional system, and per bottle-2-cartridge system and per refill cartridge for the
JAWS system.

Table A 22 Weights of secondary packaging

 

 

 

 

Per bottle Per bottle system
Weight, g Per cartridge
Conventional JAWS
corrugated box 37.61 42.33 3.18
stretch wrap 0.51 1.11 0.07
pallet 68.73 151.20 9.07

 

 

 

 

 

 

83

6.3. Appendix C — Truck Transport-Related Emissions

Calculation of fuel use per functional unit for 500 mile average distance from

filler to retailer:

Table A 23 Shipping weights

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
Shipping wt, kg 1094.312617 75.16957001 64.69689204
Shipping wt, tons 1.203743879 0.082686527 0.071166581

 

Diesel or gasoline consumption: 9.4 gal/1,000 ton-miles (Franklin Assoc, 2004).

Table A 24 Fuel consumption per functional unit for 500-mile average distance from

filler to retailer

 

Diesel or gasoline

Conventional

JAWS 10 fill

JAWS 20 fill

 

For 500 mile, gal

 

 

5.657596231

 

0.388626677

 

0334482932

 

Following tables represents the emissions for semi-trailer trucks running on

gasoline, 500 mile average distance from filler to retailer.

Table A 25 Air emissions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Air emissions g per F U Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
Particulates 1 14.8141264 7.886712057 6.787929722

NOx 168.2399391 11.55659149 9.946518944

Methane 8.861492976 0.608705964 0.523900616
hydrocarbons, other 162.589132 11.16843117 9.612437392
sulfur oxides 67.55283051 4.640280248 3.993793103

CO 988.8912452 67.92805686 58.46427166

 

84

 

 

 

Table A 25 Contd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aldehydes 1 .027419476 0.0705 74605 0.0607421
organics, other 300.5201966 20.64307183 17.76706437
Ammonia 0.087330655 0.005998841 0.005163079
Lead 0.796250094 0.054695319 0.047075128
Nickel 0.003595968 0.00024701 1 0.000212597
Chlorine 0.0033391 13 0.000229367 0.000197412
HCl 0.053939522 0.003705167 0.00318896
HF 0.007191936 0.000494022 0.000425195
metals, other 0.005907662 0.000405804 0.000349267
nitrous oxide 0.006164517 0.000423448 0.000364453

 

85

 

Table A 26 Water emissions

 

 

 

 

Water emissions g/F U Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
COD (cherrrical oxygen
1.90072603 0.130563018 0.112372886
demand)
BOD (biological oxygen
0.282540356 0.019408016 0.016704078
demand)
dissolved solids 76.28589606 5.240164387 4.510100956

 

suspended solids

1.746613108

0.1 19976828

0.103261571

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oil 1.772298595 0.121741 193 0.104780123
sulfuric acid 0.015154437 0.001040975 0.000895946
Ammonia 0.030822584 0.0021 17238 0.001822263
Boron 0.061645169 0.004234476 0.003644526
Cadmium 0.002825404 0.00019408 0.000167041
Iron 0.041096779 0.002822984 0.002429684
Chromium 0.002825404 0.00019408 0.000167041
metal, other 0.41096779 0.028229842 0.02429684
Chlorides 2.799718071 0.192315797 0.165522224
Sulfates 2.260322846 0.15526413 0.133632621
Phosphates 0.007705646 0.00052931 0.000455566
other organics 0.184935506 0.012703429 0.010933578

 

Following tables represents the emissions for semi-trucks running on diesel, 500

mile average distance from filler to retailer.

86

 

Table A 27 Air emissions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Air emissions g per FU Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill

particulates 80.9092837 5.557750107 4.783440408

NOx 559.9436142 38.46315947 33.10444473

methane 10.40262219 0.714567871 0.615013767

hydrocarbons, other 225.7754297 15.50876935 13.34807657

sulfur oxides 159.2500187 10.9390637 9.415025565

CO 552.2379681 37.93384994 32.64887898

aldehydes 15.33423567 1.053325973 0.906575849

organics, other 297.9516479 20.46663531 17.61520912
ammonia 0. 102741948 0.00705746 0.00607421

lead 0.000359597 2.4701 1E-05 2.12597E-05

nickel 0.004366533 0.000299942 0.000258154

chlorine 0.003852823 0.000264655 0.000227783

HCl 0.064213717 0.004410913 0.003796381

HF 0.00847621 1 0.00058224 0.000501 122

metals, other 0.006935081 0.000476379 0.000410009

nitrous oxide 0.007191936 0.000494022 0.000425195

 

87

 

Table A 28 Water emissions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water emissions g/F U Conventional JAWS 10 fill JAWS 20 fill
COD 2.234637359 0.153499765 0.132114068
BOD 0.33391133 0.022936746 0.019741183
dissolved solids 89.38549437 6.139990594 5.284562737
suspended solids 2.029153464 0.139384844 0.119965648
oil 2.080524438 0.142913574 0.123002753
sulfuric acid 0.017722986 0.001217412 0.001047801
ammonia 0.035959682 0.0024701 1 1 0.002125974
boron 0.071919363 0.004940222 0.004251947
cadmium 0.0033391 13 0.000229367 0.000197412
iron 0.048802425 0.003352294 0.00288525
chromium 0.0033391 13 0.000229367 0.000197412
metal, other 0.488024251 0.033522937 0.028852498
chlorides 3.287742322 0.225838735 0.194374721
sulfates 2.645605149 0.181729607 0.156410909
phosphates 0.00898992 0.000617528 0.000531493
other organics 0.218326639 0.014997103 0.012907696

 

88

 

6.4. Appendix D — Shrink-wrapped JAWS bottle with two cartridges

Disinfcdaf"
Cleaner Dflgfdd'r‘u,’

 

4‘

Figure 11hrin-wrapped JAWS bottle with two cartridges.

89

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

References

Barron's Educational Series, I., in Dictionary of Marketing Terms. 2000, Barron's
Educational Series.

The Gale Group, 1. Modern Packaging and Canning. Encyclopedia of Food and
Culture 2003 [cited; Available from: http://www.answers.com/topic/modern-
packaging-and-canning.

 

(TIS), T.I.S. Functions of packaging. 2002-2008 [cited; Available from:
http://www.tis-gdv.de/tis e/verpack/funktion/funktion.htm.

 

Mander, T., Packaging in action, in Home Economics and Technology Teachers
Association of New Zealand (HETI‘ANZ): Queenstown, Otago, New Zealand.

Curran, M.A., Broad-based environmental life cycle assessment. Environmental
Science & Technology, 1993. 27(3): p. 430-436.

TecEco. Life Cycle Analysis. [cited 2008 June 28]; Available from:
http://tececo.com/sustainability.life cycle analysisphp.

 

Fava, J.A., Can ISO Life Cycle Assessment Standards Provide Credibility for
LCA ? 2005.

LeVan, S.L., Life Cycle Assessment: Measuring Environmental Impact. Life cycle
environmental impact analysis for forest products, 1998: p. 2001-11.

Heijungs, R. and S. Suh, The Computational Structure of Life Cycle Assessment.
2002: Kluwer Acaderrric Publishers.

Azapagic, A., A. Emsley, and I. Hamerton, Polymers: The Environment and
Sustainable Development. 2003: Wiley.

Guinée, J .B., Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO
Standards. 2002: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Todd, J .A., Curran, M.A., Weitz, K., Sharma, A., Vigon, B., Price, E., Norris, G.,
Eagan, P., Owens, W., Veroutis, A., Streamlined Life-Cycle Assessment: A Final
Report from the SETAC North America Streamlined LCA Workgroup. SETAC,
Pensacola, FL, 1999.

EPA, U.S., Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the
United State: Facts and Figures for 2005. 2006.

EPA, U.S., Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the
United State: Facts and Figures for 2006. 2007.

90

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

Svoboda, 8., Note on Life Cycle Analysis in Pollution Prevention in: Corporate
Strategy. National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Education, Univ. of
Michigan, Report: LCA Note, March, 1995.

Jensen, AA. and A. European Environment, Life cycle assessment (LCA): a guide
to approaches, experiences and information sources. 1998: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities.

Wei, L.K., Life cycle assessment of CSR autoclaves lightweight concrete
production in Malaysia. 2007.

(SAIC), S.A.I.C., Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice. 2006.
Ciambrone, D.F., Environmental Life Cycle Analysis. 1997: CRC Press.

Franklin Associates, L., Resource and environmental profile analysis of
polyethylene and unbleached paper grocery sacks: Final report. Franklin
Associates Ltd, Prairie Village, KS, 1990.

Franklin Associates, L., Energy and environmental profile analysis of children 's
disposable and cloth diapers. 1990, Prairie Village, KS: Franklin Associates, Ltd
(FAL).

Lehrburger, C., Mullen, J ., Jones, C.V., Diapers: Environment Impacts and Life
Cycle Analysis. January 1991: Philadelphia, PA.

Little, A.D., ”Report on Disposable Diaper Recycling Program. ”. United States,
1992.

SETAC, A Technical Framework for Life-Cycle Assessment. 1991: Washington,
DC.

Menke, D.M., Davis, G.A., Vigon, B.W., Evaluation of Life-cycle Assessment
Tools. 1996: Environment Canada.

Zabaniotou, A. and E. Kassidi, Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging
made from polystyrene and recycled paper. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2003.
11(5): p. 549-559.

Lee, S.G. and X. Xu, A simplified life cycle assessment of re-usable and single-
use bulk transit packaging. Packaging Technology and Science, 2004. 17(2): p.
67-83.

91

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

Keoleian, G.A., et al., Life Cycle Environmental Performance and Improvement
of a Yogurt Product Delivery System. Packaging Technology and Science, 2004.
17(2): p. 85-103.

Garrido, N ., Alvarez del Castillo M.D., Environmental evaluation ofsingle-use
and reusable cups. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2007.
12(Number 4): p. 252-256.

De Monte, M., E. Padoano, and D. Pozzetto, Alternative cofi‘ee packaging: an
analysis from a life cycle point of view. Journal of Food Engineering, 2005. 66(4):
p. 405-411.

Twede, D., D. Mollenkopf, and C. Guzman-Siller, A Market-Driven Investigation
of Pallet Trends in Grocery Chains. JOURNAL OF FOOD DISTRIBUTION
RESEARCH, 2007. 38(1): p. 161.

Boustead, I., Eco-Profiles of plastics and related intermediates—Methodology.
The European Centre for Plastics in the Environment of The Association of
Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME), Brussels, Belgium. Retrieved August,
1999.7:p.2002.

Franklin Associates, Life Cycle Inventory of Packaging Options for Shipment of
Retail Mail-Order Soft Goods. 2004.

National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR), 2006 Report on
Post Consumer PET Container Recycling Activity: Sonoma.

paperrecycles.org. Recovery and Use of Old Corrugated Containers. 2007

[cited; Available from:
http://stats.paperrecycles.org/index.php‘?g1'aph=corrcont&x=78&y: l 2.

92

 

miIIIt]IIIIIIIrritant]Ill“