IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-Il'up/

 

”l
l

(92:0 lulllllllllllllllllllulm

1293 01835 3965

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

REDUCED PACKAGING ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER GOODS

presented by

AARON F. FITCHKO

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

MASTER degree in PACKAGING

\jam 5 J4

Major professor

Date MAY 1]; 1999

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

 

LIE-RARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

PLACE IN REI’URN 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.

 

AT Due

nXt“

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

UUU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1M chlWanfiS—p.“

 

 

 

 

 

REDUCED PACKAGING ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER GOODS
By

Aaron F. F itchko

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE
School of Packaging

1999

7C)
7".
_..__‘

1.71).“...
v:
ll. I"

‘ "‘H .,_n
Kn \k'u.‘u.

errand “‘ '

I .

W“ M I .
lL'GL’.J.::: ‘yk tr;
5 ~
‘-. n-~r§~ t i
[L Er¢._\un§ "I.

r‘rn .
It‘ll {TOGGU \\ L'.

K;\1\3 "H

s I‘ 9 ~

f“"“tl.L }\ \o .
b ‘ . ~k\

mafia] 2mm?

 

ABSTRACT
REDUCED PACKAGING ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER GOODS
By

Aaron F. Fitchko

This study was done to provide consumers with source reduction information for
various consumer packaging systems. The study focused on 40 product categories that
contained 252 product/packaging systems. The volume of packaging and weight of
packaging were measured for every packaging system in each product group.
Comparisons were made using packaging weight and packaging volume on three bases:
per product weight, per manufacturer serving, and per standard use amount. The
packaging systems that used the least packaging material per amount of product and the
packaging systems that used the most packaging material per amount of product were
identified. This information lead to the formation of two hypothetical “market baskets”.
Market basket 1 contained the packaging systems that used the least amount of packaging
per amount of product, and market basket 2 contained the systems that used the most.

The study found that a consumer purchasing a “market basket” containing the
packaging systems found in market basket 2 would have 15.2 times more material on a
packaging weight per standard use basis and 7.5 times more material on a packaging
volume per standard use basis than those items in market basket 1. The study produced
numerous comparisons that consumers can use to identify packaging systems that
produce the least waste per amount of product in order to reduce the amount of waste

material generated in their living environments.

To Frank, Nikki and Darcy

iii

offing: “hi

I \w-
Sciic. Dr. li ..
exceptional a:
Suzi}. TH;
I \\ UL.
leaf-0M this
I “on

“ho heiped n:

Hudson,

I “0141

[Mind aspect;
“Ollld {1130 11k

“Whitman
F inal l \‘

my gmdllcn'en

01 you for this

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am glad I am a Spartan. If I were not, I wouldn’t have been exposed to the
exceptional people at Michigan State University. These people include the professors,
staff, and students whom I have had contact with over the years. I would like to thank all
of those who have helped me along the way with this study.

I would especially like to thank the members of my thesis committee, Dr. Susan
Selke, Dr. Hugh Lockhart and Dr. Tracy Dobson. Your patience and effort has been
exceptional and without your guidance, I would not have been able to complete this
study. Thank-you.

I would like to thank the National Consumers’ League for sponsoring this study.

I enjoyed this project and hope the results will be beneficial to consumers everywhere.

I would also like to thank two students from the Minority Apprenticeship Program
who helped me compile some of the data in this study, Ashley Thomas and Kwame
Hudson.

I would also like to thank numerous friends for their support throughout my study.
I would especially like to thank Laura Bix for her friendship during graduate school. I
would also like to thank Ryan, Bill and Jeff for their continued support and
encouragement.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Frank and Nikki, my sister, Darcy, and
my grandparents. Without you this would not have been possible. I will always love all

of you for this.

LIST (If IX
LIST (II III

Cli-‘IPTE R I
INTRIIIN (‘
1.] ()L‘L\

CHAPTER I
[HER-WI i4
ll Marx.
3.: SICK"

Liz's t

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH

3.1

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
1 .1 Objectives ............................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 5
2.1 Municipal Solid Waste .............................................................. 5
2.2 Source Reduction .................................................................... 10
2.3 Life Cycle Assessment .............................................................. 14
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN ....................................................................... 17
3.1 Conceptual Model ................................................................... 17
3.1.1 Model Assumptions and Exclusions ..................................... 19
3.2 Product Category Selection ......................................................... 21
3.3 Product Selection Criteria .......................................................... 22
3.4 Packaging Preparation Criteria .................................................... 24
CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 25
4.1 Units of Measurement ............................................................... 25
4.2 Materials/Equipment ................................................................ 25
4.3 Data Acquisition Procedures ...................................................... 27
4.3.1 Laboratory Book Set-up ................................................... 27
4.3.2 Information Gathering Procedure ........................................ 28
4.4 Comparison Calculations ........................................................... 30
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................ 32
5.1 Packaging Comparative Data ...................................................... 32
5.2 Individual Product Group Data .................................................... 44
5.3 Application of the Results .......................................................... 129
5.3.] Consumer Uses of Data ................................................... 129
5.3.2 Data Interpretations ........................................................ 130
5.4 Volume and Weight Comparison Discussion .................................... 131
5.5 Manufacturer Serving Size and Standard Use Discussion ..................... 133
5.5.1 Product Groups of Varied Standard Use Levels ........................ 135

CHAPIEI
Sl'.\l_\l.\I
6.1 5.:
6.3 (3"
6.3 Ii:
64 S;

APPEYI')?
PICITRI;

APPENI)‘
. is‘iSIILR

APPEVD
ADDIIII.

BIBLIOC

 

CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ................... 138
6.1 Summary .............................................................................. 138
6.2 Conclusions ........................................................................... 140
6.3 Limitations of the Study ............................................................ 143
6.4 Suggestions for Future Research .................................................. 143
APPENDIX A

PICTURES OF PRODUCT GROUPS .................................................... 146
APPENDIX B

MASTER LIST OF PRODUCTS IN STUDY ........................................... 169
APPENDIX C

ADDITIONAL PRODUCT CATEGORY DATA TABLES ........................... 176
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................ 216

vi

Table 3.1

Table 5.1

Table 5 I

 

(D
'JI (J!
I. _4 b—l

(/0

Table 3.1

Table 5.1

Table 5.2

Table 5.3

Table 5 .4

Table 5.5

Table 5.6

Table 5.7

Table 5.8

Table 5.9

Table 5.10

Table 5.11

Table 5.12

Table 5.13

Table 5.14

Table 5.15

Table 5.16

Table 5.17

Table 5.18

Table 5.19

Table 5.20

LIST OF TABLES

Product Categories .......................................................... 22
Comparison of Market Basket 1 to Market Basket 2 .................. 33
Least and Most Packaging Materials: Weight Comparisons ......... 35

Least and Most Packaging Materials: Volume Comparisons 37
Packaging System Descriptions ........................................... 4O

Comparisons of Packaging Weight/Standard Use for Market

Basket 1 & 2 ................................................................. 42
Baby Food Comparative Data ............................................. 46
Baking Mix Comparative Data ........................................... 48
Beer Comparative Data .................................................... 50
Bread Comparative Data ................................................... 52
Candy Comparative Data .................................................. 54
Cereal Comparative Data .................................................. 56
Cheese Comparative Data ................................................. 58
Chips Comparative Data ................................................... 60
Cleaners Comparative Data ............................................... 62
Cookie Comparative Data ................................................. 64
Cracker Comparative Data ................................................ 66
Dinner Comparative Data ................................................. 68
Dish Soap Comparative Data ............................................. 70
Drink Mix Comparative Data ............................................. 74
Egg Comparative Data ..................................................... 76
vii

Table 5.21

Table 5.22

Table 5.23

Table 5.24

Table 5.25

Table 5.26

Table 5.27

Table 5.28

Table 5.29

Table 5.30

Table 5.31

Table 5.32

Table 5.33

Table 5.34

Table 5.35

Table 5.36

Table 5.37

Table 5.38

Table 5.39

Table 5.40

Table 5.41

Table 5.42

Table 5.43

Fruit Comparative Data .................................................... 78
Gum Comparative Data ................................................... 80
Hand Soap Comparative Data ............................................. 82
Ice Cream Comparative Data ............................................. 84
Juice Comparative Data ................................................... 86
Laundry Detergent Comparative Data ................................... 89
Lunch Meat Comparative Data ........................................... 91
Margarine Comparative Data ............................................. 93
Meat Comparative Data ................................................... 95
Milk Comparative Data .................................................... 97
Paper Towel Comparative Data .......................................... 99
Pasta Comparative Data ................................................... 101
Pet Food Comparative Data ............................................... 103
Poultry Comparative Data ................................................. 105
Shampoo Comparative Data .............................................. 107
Soft Drink Comparative Data ............................................. 109
Soup Comparative Data ................................................... 11 1
Tissue Comparative Data .................................................. 113
Toilet Tissue Comparative Data .......................................... 115
Tomato Product Comparative Data ...................................... 117
Toothpaste Comparative Data ............................................. 119
Tuna Fish Comparative Data ............................................. 121
Vegetables Comparative Data ............................................. 123

viii

Table 5.44 Water Comparative Data ................................................... 125

Table 5.45 Yogurt Comparative Data ................................................. 127

Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.3
Figure 5.4
Figure 5.5
Figure 5.6
Figure 5.7
Figure 5.8
Figure 5.9
Figure 5.10
Figure 5.11
Figure 5.12
Figure 5.13
Figure 5.14
Figure 5.15
Figure 5.16
Figure 5.17

Figure 5.18

LIST OF FIGURES

Municipal Solid Waste, 1996 ............................................. 6

Packaging in municipal solid waste, 1996 .............................. 7

Disposal options for municipal solid waste, 1996 ...................... 9

Comparisons of Market Basket 1 to Market Basket 2 ................. 34
Baby Food Comparative Data ............................................. 47
Baking Mix Comparative Data ........................................... 49
Beer Comparative Data .................................................... 5]
Bread Comparative Data ................................................... 53
Candy Comparative Data .................................................. 55
Cereal Comparative Data .................................................. 57
Cheese Comparative Data ................................................. 59
Chips Comparative Data ................................................... 61
Cleaners Comparative Data ............................................... 63
Cookie Comparative Data ................................................. 65
Cracker Comparative Data ................................................ 67
Dinner Comparative Data ................................................. 69
Hand Dish Soap Comparative Data ...................................... 72
Automatic Dish Soap Comparative Data ................................ 73
Drink Mix Comparative Data ............................................. 75
Egg Comparative Data ..................................................... 77
Fruit Comparative Data .................................................... 79

1w 1 \
P15ur’b -
u

.'
I
L

i
r

I!

._. 1
I".
I .'
‘1
(1
II

 

5:112:53

1:11:11}? 531

Figure 5.19
Figure 5.20
Figure 5.21
Figure 5.22
Figure 5.23
Figure 5.24
Figure 5.25
Figure 5.26
Figure 5.27
Figure 5.28
Figure 5.29
Figure 5.30
Figure 5.31
Figure 5.32
Figure 5.33
Figure 5.34
Figure 5.35
Figure 5.36
Figure 5.37
Figure 5.38
Figure 5.39
Figure 5.40

Figure 5.41

Gum Comparative Data ................................................... 81
Hand Soap Comparative Data ............................................. 83
Ice Cream Comparative Data ............................................. 85
Juice Comparative Data ................................................... 88
Laundry Detergent Comparative Data ................................... 90
Lunch Meat Comparative Data ........................................... 92
Margarine Comparative Data ............................................. 94
Meat Comparative Data ................................................... 96
Milk Comparative Data .................................................... 98
Paper Towel Comparative Data .......................................... 100
Pasta Comparative Data ................................................... 102
Pet Food Comparative Data ............................................... 104
Poultry Comparative Data ................................................. 106
Shampoo Comparative Data .............................................. 108
Soft Drink Comparative Data ............................................. 110
Soup Comparative Data ................................................... l 12
Tissue Comparative Data .................................................. 114
Toilet Tissue Comparative Data .......................................... 116
Tomato Product Comparative Data ...................................... 118
Toothpaste Comparative Data ............................................. 120
Tuna Fish Comparative Data ............................................. 122
Vegetables Comparative Data ............................................. 124
Water Comparative Data ................................................... 126

xi

Figure 5.42 Yogurt Comparative Data ................................................. 128

xii

. "10.".
T’CJLIL...

prmidc In:

PTOdLIm ISL

“1“ Prmidt
11110m3110n

The

represematii

“1111;

the \anet) OI

lilcl

ffer

1

 

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Source reduction is a practice that can have a significant impact on waste
reduction. This is the process in which the amount of waste generated is reduced at the
designing, manufacturing, packaging and purchasing phase of a product. The consumer
can apply source reduction practices during the selection phase of purchasing products.
In general, source reduction refers to reducing the amount of waste generated at its
source.

The purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive analysis of reduced
packaging for common consumer items found in supermarkets. The analysis was done to
provide information about the amount of waste that a packaging system provides after
product use. This will act as a guide to the types of grocery item packaging systems that
will provide the consumer with the least material to dispose of after product use. The
information can also be used by industry to evaluate the amount of material used for their
packaging systems.

The approach was to select an array of supermarket product categories
representative 'of consumer purchases; to identify within the categories specific products
that are offered in a variety of sizes, modes of preparation, and types of packaging. The
study consisted of 40 categories of products, represented by 252 individual products.

Within each product category, a range of products was selected that represented
the variety of packaging options available in the supermarket. The objective was to

include all combinations of packaging that might result from purchases of product based

on 11R: 5'.

£110.“)

detemr...
ofmmri-
EWUM .-
' I

‘533 Nth.
Pivducts ..
1“ 53th Ir.
are BSOCL;

PNUCI 11.7

 

 

on life style choices not necessarily related to minimizing packaging solid waste. These
choices might include economics of price, economics of size (quantity of net contents),
dietary considerations, taste preference, etc. Thus, the consumer can know the packaging
solid waste impact of most of the purchase choices available.

The amount of packaging for each product was determined. This was, in fact, a
determination of the amount of solid waste resulting from each package type, each kind
of material, or combination of package type and material. The products were then
grouped into two “market baskets”. Market basket 1 is the group of products using the
least packaging per delivered unit of product, and market basket 2 is the group of
products using the most packaging per delivered unit of product. The packaging solutions
in each market basket provide information for consumers as to which packaging systems
are associated with the “most” and “least” amount of packaging per delivered unit Of
product for supermarket products.

The amount of packaging was determined on both a weight basis, and a volume
basis. The weight basis is the easier of the two to determine, and is the easier one for
most people to visualize. The volume basis refers to the volume of the solid packaging
material that surrounds the product. Since the volume determination involves a number
of measurements and calculations of different kinds, it must be assumed that this method
is less precise than is the weight method, which requires only a single direct weighing of
the material.

Once the weight and volume of the packaging components were determined, the
calculated weight and volume of packaging material used per unit amount of product was

determined. This calculation was made on three different bases: 1) per gram of product

11ch .z...’

10 G’ClL‘ 7T.

 

I .. :
acme: :ti

 

 

for solids or per milliliter of product for liquids, 2) per manufacturer’s recommended use,
and 3) per standard use. The manufacturer’s recommended use calculations involve the
labeled serving size or use amount of a particular product. The standard use calculation
involves a level of “use” that is equivalent for all products in a particular product group.
These variables are discussed further in section 3.1. These comparisons were then used
to determine the packaging systems that provided the most and the least material per

delivered unit of product after product use for each product category.

1.10biectives:

The objective of this report is to focus on how consumers can apply this
information to purchasing decisions of consumer goods. The findings will be useful in
helping consumers purchase products on a “source reduction” basis. This will include
examples that consumers can model their interpretations of the data after. The discussion
will also focus on how industry can use this information to evaluate packaging systems
and components on a per delivered amount of product basis.

This report will also include a discussion of the differences between the volume
and weight comparisons made for each product in the original report. The discussion
section will also include the differences between the standard use comparison and the
manufacturer serving size, the validity of the standard use size used in the comparisons,
and the validity of the assumptions made in the study.

This study is to be a companion to the “Reduced Packaging of Consumer Goods”
report produced by the Michigan State University School Of Packaging for The National

Consumers’ League. This report was completed in May 1998 and is available from the

DI. Sb

School

139-011.

‘ i‘r ~1
TCXLLAI

LH‘IS Sid.

COHliilll .

 

School of Packaging at Michigan State University and The National Consumers League.
Dr. Susan Selke or Dr. Hugh Lockhart can be contacted for further information about the
report.

The next chapter presents a review of the literature. Chapter 3 presents the
research design of the study; Chapter 4 contains a description of the methodology used in
this study. Chapter 5 presents the results and discussion portions of the study. Chapter 6

contains a summary of the study, and suggestions for future research.

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This section presents a review of the literature for this study. The first portion of
this section will discuss the current municipal solid waste picture and management
strategies in the United States. The second portion will discuss source reduction
strategies and practices, and the third will discuss life-cycle assessments. This chapter is

written with a focus on the effects of packaging materials in these areas.

2.1 Mgicinal Solid Waste;

Municipal solid waste is composed of several types of materials including paper
and paperboard, yard trimmings, glass, metal, plastics, wood and food wastes. These
items can typically be thought of as the wastes that most consumers have contact with on
a daily basis. Products found in municipal solid waste are grouped into one of three main
categories: durable goods, nondurable goods and containers/packaging. The durable
goods category contains no significant amounts of paper or paperboard, the nondurable
goods category includes only small amounts of metals, and the container/packaging
category contains only small amounts of rubber, leather and textiles. The total amount of
municipal solid waste generated in the US. in 1996 was 209.7 million tons. The
containers/packaging category made up 33.0% of all the municipal solid waste for 1996,
approximately 69.2 million tons. The nondurable goods category contained 26.5% (55.7

million tons) and the durable goods category contained 15.5% (31.7 million tons) of all

 

Data from

Figure 3.1

The

 

8135, Nash

made U

“D
(J!
J.

l

 

recycling- C

oflhe

'1

~31 (EPA. 1

I01511 a

municipal solid waste. The remainder of the waste can be attributed to food wastes and

yard trimmings (see Figure 2.1) (EPA, 1998).

   

Containers and Nondurable goods
Packaging 27%
33%
,.-, .7 . :30 urable goods
Yard Trimmings Food, other 15%
13% 12%

Data from EPA, 1998.

Figure 2.1 Municipal Solid Waste, 1996 (weight percent before recycling).

The containers and packaging category was made up Of paper and paperboard,
glass, plastics, metals and other materials, mainly wood. Paper and paperboard materials
made up 55.6% of the total amount of containers and packaging by weight before
recycling. Glass made up 15.9%, plastics accounted for 11.8% and metals made up 7.1%
of the total amount of containers and packaging by weight before recycling (see Figure

2.2) (EPA, 1998).

D 3:3 Hum

Figure 3.‘

 

la
\

Plastics
1 2%

Other
10%

Metals ,
7%

Paper &
Paperboard
55%

 

Data from EPA, 1998

Figure 2.2 Packaging in municipal solid waste, 1996 (weight percent before recycling).

The amount of containers and packaging materials iS predicted to increase to
36.5% of the municipal solid waste stream by the year 2000 (American City & County,
1995). This will be mainly due to increased use of plastics in packaging and containers.
Plastic packaging had the largest increase in generation for all materials, growing by
nearly one million tons, from 18.9 to 19.8 million tons, between 1995 and 1996 (EPA,
1998).

The overall amount of municipal solid waste generated has recently dropped,
from a high of 214.2 million tons in 1994. Prior to the downturn, total municipal solid
waste generation had increased every year from 88 million tons in 1960 to 214 million
tons in 1994 (EPA, 1998). Tonnage is predicted to increase to 218 million tons by the
year 2000; however waste amounts entering landfills may be less due to a predicted

recovery (recycling) rate of 30% (American City & County, 1995).

 

‘,

“3.516111 .‘
recycling- 4
19981.

1.3::
puma? d1)
hare been a

Dueling.

 

The EPA produced a solid waste management hierarchy that contains three non-
mutually exclusive waste management strategies. The top strategy is source reduction,
which is defined as prevention of waste at its source, either by redesigning products or by
changing consumption or waste generation patterns. This method will be discussed in
further detail later in this chapter. The next strategy is recycling or recovery. This
method includes most types of composting. The final, and most widely used, strategy is
that of disposal, either through waste combustion, with energy recovery, or landfilling
(EPA, 1998).

Landfilling provided 55.5%, 116.3 million tons, of the disposal of municipal solid
waste in 1996. Combustion provided 17.2%, 36.1 million tons, and recovery for
recycling and composting provided 27.3%, 57.3 million tons. (see Figure 2.3) (EPA,
1998).

Landfilling tonnage has decreased from the early 1990’s, but it remains the
primary disposal option for a majority of the MSW in the United States. These levels
have been decreasing due to increased recovery rates, mainly attributed to increased
recycling.

The number of landfills in the United States available for disposal of municipal
solid waste has been decreasing in recent years, 8000 in 1988 to 3091 in 1996. The
greatest drops were seen in 1993 and 1994, when more than 900 landfills closed each
year. The closures in 1993 and 1994 were mainly attributed to the federal Subtitle D
regulations that required liner improvements and more stringent site management criteria.
The majority of the subsequent closures, however, are due to individual landfills reaching

capacity (Goldstein, 1997).

Combustion
17%

 

Data from EPA, 1998.

Figure 2.3 Disposal options for municipal solid waste, 1996.

Although the total number of landfills in the United States is decreasing, overall
landfill capacity has remained relatively constant. Currently, the Southwest and West
regions of the United States have the largest numbers of landfills (EPA, 1998). This is
due to the availability of land for landfills in these regions. The Northeast United States
has fewer new landfills due to siting difficulties and the lack of available land. The
municipal solid waste in the sparsely populated West is more likely to be sent to a landfill
than is household waste in the more densely settled Northeast, where land is more scarce
(Duda & Shaw, 1997). As landfills in the Northeast close, transfer stations become the
primary facility for handling municipal solid waste on a local basis (Goldstein, 1997).

Transfer stations are facilities at which municipal solid waste is processed and
prepared for “transfer” to landfills in other states or regions. The number of transfer

stations grew to 3123 in 1996. This trend is expected to continue, especially as landfills

~l v p ,
L10>C .11”.

 

create a s
dztticult‘.

such as 1%,

of landfill

‘wv.

\\
reduction
reductior
“3516 g:
mam’ger

[hesoht

. Nor

1"" ..
“dilem-

close and waste has to be hauled further distances for disposal. The eastern United States
currently reports the highest number of transfer stations, around 1225 (Goldstein, 1997).

The continued growth and reliance on transfer stations in the eastern US. could
create a situation similar to that of countries in Europe. Most major European cities have
difficulty finding suitable sites for landfilling within easy reach of the cities. Some cities,
such as Brussels, transport much of their waste more than 100 km for disposal. The lack
of landfill sites in these regions has resulted in a need for reduction in waste production
and for new methods of disposal. The European Union has required waste reduction
strategies that promote more source reduction and recovery and less of a reliance on
landfilling, especially for packaging wastes (Levy, Johnson, 1993).

While landfill capacity and reliance remains relatively steady in the US,
reduction of municipal solid wastes through progressive practices, such as source
reduction, will allow for easier waste management decisions in the future. Avoiding
waste generation through source reduction decreases the need to develop or expand waste
management systems, such as landfills and incinerators, and reduces the controversy of

siting new facilities (DeYoung, 1993).

2._2 Source Reduction;

The Environmental Protection Agency has placed source reduction at the top of
the solid waste management hierarchy since 1976 (EPA, 1976). Other agencies, such as
the Northeast Waste Management Association (N EWMOA), have also ranked source
reduction at the top of their waste management hierarchy (Biocycle, 1996). The solid

waste management hierarchy consists of three non-mutually exclusive waste management

10

51:37.8; I c ~
at 1L9 30L:
1
generaIL
111051 I) F;
61:. er :11:
The 113.11.?
50mm re -1
S.

 

enter the \

Re.
Comp-1516 (
“-1111 1min;
“(Ste 18 or
he“Nous
landfills ir
Ol‘pmgm}
fimCllOn Sl
dll’emng

Rt
aCComphS

mlll of pig

strategies. The top strategy is source reduction, which is defined as prevention of waste
at its source, either by redesigning products or by changing consumption or waste
generation patterns. The next strategy is recycling or recovery. This method includes
most types of composting. The final, and most widely used, strategy is that of disposal,
either through waste combustion, with energy recovery, or landfilling (EPA, 1998).

The nature of packaging materials in the waste stream makes them a major target for
source reduction programs throughout the nation (Lignon, 1991).

Source reduction involves the design, manufacture, purchase, or use of materials,
such as products and packaging, in order to reduce their amount or toxicity before they
enter the MSW management system (EPA, 1998).

Reducing the toxicity of municipal solid wastes allows for the reduction or
complete elimination of contamination problems associated with landfill leachate and
with incinerator emissions. The focus of this type of source reduction for municipal solid
waste is on household hazardous wastes and heavy metals. The reduction of household
hazardous waste involves the diversion of household hazardous wastes from
landfills/incinerators to recovery programs. The products typically involved in this type
of program include batteries, motor oils and paints. Heavy metal reduction programs
function similarly to the household hazardous waste reduction programs, focusing on
diverting products containing heavy metals, such as lead and cadmium (Selke, 1994).

Reduction in the amount of waste generated, or source reduction, can be
accomplished through four basic approaches: reducing the amount of material used per

unit of product, increasing the lifetime of durable and semi-durable goods, substituting

V 1 I
YELLSJE‘IL

b} cons.

source It
reducing
packagir,
manul'acu

TEQCIIng

the mater:

 

 

 

19961

the manuf

Imoh c,- 7.1

reusable products for single use products, and directly reducing the amount of goods used
by consumers (EPA, 1975).

The reduction in materials is generally thought of as the classical method of
source reduction (Selke, 1994). From a packaging perspective, this typically involves
reducing the amount of material and/or reducing the energy required to manufacure the
packaging system. Minimizing the use of materials and energy is looked at by many
manufacturers within the packaging industry as a better strategy for waste reduction than
recycling (by itself). Studies indicate reducing the amount of packaging, regardless of
the materials used, is an excellent way to minimize wastes (New Zealand Manufacturer,
1996)

This type of source reduction can be accomplished through various activities on
the manufacturer level. One way is through a process called “lightweighting”. This
involves the reduction of weight and volume of packaging materials used in a packaging
system, while preserving its functionality. This typically has occurred and is occurring in
packaging systems such as metal cans and plastic and glass bottles (Selke, 1994).

Another method for material reduction on the manufacturer level is through
packaging system modifications and/or material changes. This involves modifying
existing packaging systems, usually through material changes, so that less materials or
energy are needed to provide the packaging function. The development of new plastic
materials has resulted in the substitution of lighter packaging materials for heavier
materials, such as metals and glass (Selke, 1994). Several manufacturers have developed

successful new source reduced packages. For example, Dupont’s Mini-Sip pouches use

12

r O '
)5) 3111“ .

5.6361111.

ethhII I.
11110111231:

‘T1‘ t91,.
aLkZ‘ALI\'§

A

1mm hung
actix ities.

111C 187.15g 1”

11110171131111;

 

seventy percent less material than individual milk cartons and are now being used to
serve milk to over a million school children in Canada (Ottoman, 1995).

Source reduction practices mainly occur at the manufacturer level. Consumers
exhibit less source reduction practices due to several reasons including lack of
information about source reduction and lack of methods to carry out source reduction
activities. The challenge facing officials is how to put the concept of source reduction
into practice (for consumers) (Moeger, 1994).

Consumers can apply source reduction in various ways. These activities range
from home based activities, such as reusing aluminum foil, to “consumer-based”
activities, such as buying items with less packaging. Consumers have been shown to
increase their practice of source reduction when an apprOpriate, low-intensity educational

information is provided for their use (DeYoung, 1993).

13

2.3 Lift

rm 1101117

CI .13 Lute

 

 

or cradle

Chemist;

 

em
en ‘.
C} ('
131:

Use

111‘
$31 U316 er

prOgIESSQd

_2_.3_L_ife Cycle Assessmgn_t:_

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is the technique designed to evaluate the
environmental impact of a product or process. The basis for the methodology is to
evaluate inputs and outputs associated with a product or process, throughout its lifecycle,
or cradle to the grave (Selke, 1994). The Society of Environmental Toxicology and

Chemistry (SETAC) defines life cycle assessment in the following way:

“The life-cycle assessment is an objective process to evaluate the
environmental burdens associated with a product, process or activity by
identifying and quantifying energy and material uses and releases on the
environment, and to evaluate and implement opportunities to effect
environmental improvements. The assessment includes the entire life
cycle of the product, process, or activity, encompassing extracting and
processing raw materials: manufacturing; transportation, and distribution;

use/re-use/maintenance; recycling and final disposal.” (SETAC, 1991).

Life cycle assessments have roots as far back as 1960, when they were used to
evaluate energy use by various systems. Life cycle assessments, through time, have
progressed into other subjects, such as solid waste issues and air and water emissions
(SETAC, 1991). Packaging material studies represent one of the most important
application fields of LCA. It is estimated that in the period between 1970 and 1992, more
than 40% of the publicly available LCA studies concerned packaging materials

(Knoepfel, 1994).

14

111.120.".1}
. .. .,
HEPJL L5.

iudgemc'

ex 31am- .-
11161331!
1116 l‘NlI ',
QTF‘TNCI‘. 1
1Watt ar.

Tr.-

Llllil OU‘LI‘UI

 

CFC]? 1171pq
|
311d 153ng
“The 11136 c:
0lll‘OrIIIIiiti
01 aCIiVlU ..

anii ities, S

The
been (10% c

participants

Life cycle assessments, however, varied in scope and methodology during a
majority of this time period. Problems existed when comparing various environmental
impacts, such as comparing water effluents to air effluents, due to the inclusion of value
judgements (Selke, 1994).

It was due to problems like these that SETAC held a workshop in 1990 to
evaluate and to define terms to describe life cycle assessments. The workshop produced
the framework for how life cycle assessments are carried out today. The key finding of
the 1990 workshop was to define life cycle assessment as a phased approach. This
approach featured three interrelated components, the life cycle inventory, the life cycle
impact analysis, and the life cycle improvement analysis (Curran, 1996).

The life cycle inventory consists of an objective process of quantifying the inputs
and outputs incurred throughout the life cycle of a product, process, or activity. The life
cycle impact analysis is a technical, quantitative and/or qualitative process to characterize
and assess the effects of the inputs and outputs identified in the inventory component.
“The life cycle improvement analysis is a systematic evaluation of the needs and
opportunities to reduce the environmental burden associated with energy and raw
materials use and waste emissions throughout the whole life cycle of a product, process
or activity.” This includes both quantitative and qualitative measure of processes and
activities, such as waste management and consumer use (SETAC, 1991).

The workshop also agreed that most life cycle assessments that had previously
been done consisted primarily of only the life cycle inventory component. The workshop
participants also pointed out that there was a need for development of the life cycle

impact analysis and of the life cycle improvement analysis components (Selke, 1994).

15

Life cycle improvement assessment often iS born from the desire to reduce
burdens on the environment by altering a product or process. Another driver for life
cycle improvement assessments has been the desire to benchmark a product against
competitive products or to prove that one product is environmentally preferable to
another. These types of improvement assessments are designed to assist individuals or

companies in making more environmentally sound choices (Curran, 1996).

'JJ
.—
A

C
,..

i-
1

-——4

CUBS HlC'

com; are '

 

PM}! :I C.

in the 5111C

1..er 1?

10d 1;

 

 

Chapter 3

RESEARCH DESIGN

3.1 Conceptual Model:

The purpose of this study was to gather information on the solid waste impacts of
consumer packages found in grocery stores. The study was specifically designed to
compare the source reduction aspects of each consumer package. The study included 40
product categories, containing 252 product/package systems. The weight and volume of
the packaging components and the weight of the product were measured for each product
in the study. This was, in fact, a determination of the amount of solid waste resulting
from each package type, kind of material, or combination of package type and material.
This provided the weight and volume of the packaging components individually, which
then were combined to give the total weight and volume for the entire packaging system.
From this, the weight and volume of packaging material used per unit amount of product
was determined. These calculations were done on three different bases: 1) per gram of
product for solids or per milliliter of product for liquids, 2) per manufacturer’s

recommended use, and 3) per standard use. A discussion of these bases is as follows:

Per gram or per milliliter - This provides a fundamental product based standard

for comparison.

Per manufacturer's recommended use - Foods, especially, and some other

products as well, carry a manufacturer's recommendation for the amount that

17

constitutes a “use” or serving. Probably most consumers use this
recommendation as a starting point for their use behavior. The Food and Drug
Administration and the U. S. Department of Agriculture have developed a great
deal of tabulated data on the “serving Size” for many foods. The study assumed
the manufacturer’s recommendation for number of servings for foods is based on
data developed by the government agencies, or on data of equal validity

developed by themselves.

Per standard use (food) - Consumers adjust the amount they use for a serving, at
least part of the time. It is also true that the recommended serving size varies in
nutritional value, such as calories. For this reason, a “standard use”, or “standard
serving” was established that uses 100 calories as the basis. To accomplish this,
the calorie count given by the manufacturer was used to recalculated a serving
size based on a calorie count of 100. Thus, if the manufacturer’s serving is 100
grams with 130 calories, the “standard serving” of 100 calories would be 77

grams.

Per standard use (other than food) - Many non-food products do not have a
manufacturer’s recommended number of uses, or quantity of product to be used
for a single use. For these, a standard use was established, based on an ad hoc
study among the thesis committee members to measure a reasonable use size.
While this was not done by any designed experiment with proven validity over all

consumers, it was done in an unbiased manner. The determined value was used

18

I
-——.‘

rcpt: err
grou; 017
1.5ng h;
deter. in;

9

01pm .4;
F01 31 lot
Seii’Cl '11 i,
he 58 cti

deiem 112:“

dtlem 33.

 

matfirial h...

[hell Cale ia;

 

 

for the comparison of packaging material per use within a product category is

based on a constant value.

The products were then grouped into two “market baskets” consisting of
representative packaging systems for each product category. Market basket 1 is the
group of products using the least packaging, and market basket 2 is the group of products
using the most packaging per delivered unit of product. These “baskets” were used to
determined which packaging systems were associated with the most and the least amount
of packaging per delivered unit of product for supermarket products.

For almost all product categories, the “most packaging used” or “least packaging used”
selection was the same for both volume and weight determinations. For a few categories,
the selection would be different for the volume determination than for the weight
determination. When this happened, the assignment was based on the weight

determination because it is the more reliable of the two, as described in 3.1 . 1.

3.1.1 Model Assumptions and Exclusions:

The amount of packaging was determined on both a weight basis, and a volume
basis. The weight basis is the easier of the two to determine, and is the easier one for
most people to visualize. The volume basis refers to the volume of the solid packaging
material that surrounds the product. For some materials and packages, such as paper
wraps, was determined by measuring the length, width and thickness of the material, and
then calculating the volume for other materials and packages, such as plastic bottles. The

volume of material (plastic) was determined by measuring the amount of water displaced

19

b} the 1‘-
bottlc 1v
1116351112"
15 1116 Wt
\Iilumc .
greater 11'

This \
include i:

 

 

“suited :1
01‘ 161311 p,
'11

minim L11 p
the Pmdut
S}'SlCm. :1
lhereb} re.
Th
famed c.
Fit
manufaqu
Imam (a:

ESQ€121le

by the bottle emptied of product, or by measuring the actual area and thickness of the
bottle to get a volume. Since the volume determination involves a number of
measurements of different kinds, it must be assumed that this method is less precise than
is the weight method that requires only a single direct weighing of the material. The
volume of the material is of interest to some researchers now, and it may become of
greater interest in the future. Therefore, it was included in the study.

This study focussed only on the retail packaging of a product. This study did not
include information about the packaging required for distribution of the retail products.
In some cases, less packaging for the consumer to take home means more packaging is
required for safe distribution of the product. No attempt was made to examine the effects
of retail packaging on distribution packaging.

This study did not include variables related to product quality and shelf life. A
minimal package, while functioning properly, might result in reduction in the quality of
the product, which could lead to an increase in the discard rate for the product/packaging
system. A more substantial packaging system could prolong the quality of the product
thereby reducing the discard rate of the product/packaging system.

This study did not evaluate the recyclability of the packaging material, use of
recycled content, compostability, or energy value of the disposed materials.

Finally, this study did not examine factors related to pollutants emitted during
manufacturing processes, energy consumption during manufacturing or distribution,
product (and package) waste associated with damage during distribution, impacts

associated with disposal of the packages, and other such factors.

20

 

 

 

each pm:
Snipe 01;
therefore
Product (
1151 Clllr}
3nd \\ 35 1

O
b} the C0
Calegm}.
p rodUCI 5
[his is {0
refingi‘ra
Cam's-0r}.

in 11113 C:

“‘13 bee

_u Product Category Selection:

The product categories were selected from the Nielsen Product Category List.
This list consists of the 40 most purchased consumer items in a supermarket environment.
Table 3.1 shows the product categories that were selected for use in this study. Each
product category was discussed before final inclusion in the study. This was done to
ensure that the products from the category were available in markets in the Lansing,
Michigan area. The discussion also provided the opportunity to discuss the validity of
each product group in the study. The Nielsen Product Category List varied as to the
scope of each product category. Some product categories were found to be broad and
therefore required that a specific product type be selected for analysis. The Tuna Fish
Product Category is an example of this type of category. The Nielsen Product Category
List entry for this type of product was seafood. This proved to be too broad of category
and was therefore narrowed to tuna fish, a type of seafood.

Other product categories needed to be combined Since the product being selected
by the consumer was the “same”. Some product categories in the Nielsen Product
Category List were found to be actually subcategories of the same product type. These
product subcategories were combined since the product was the same. An example of
this is found in the juice category. The Nielsen List had subcategories of frozen juice,
refrigerated juice and bottled juices. These subcategories were combined into the
category of Juice for the purposes of this study. This was done because the same product,
in this case juice, is delivered to the consumer regardless of the subcategory.

The dish detergent category was split into two subcategories in this study. This

was because the product category consisted of two different product types, hand dish

21

soaps. a:
catcgori:

dishwas?

 

soaps and automatic dishwasher soaps. This category was split into these two sub-

categories for comparison purposes, Since hand dish soaps cannot be used in automatic

dishwashers.

Table 3.1 Product Categories

 

Baby Food
Baking Mix
Beer
Bread
Candy
Cereal
Cheese
Chips
Cleaners
Cookies
Crackers
Dinners

Dishwashing Detergent

Drink Mix
Eggs

Fruit

Gum
Hand Soap
Ice Cream
Juices

Laundry Detergent
Lunch Meat
Margarine

Meat

Milk

Paper Towel
Pasta

Pet Food
Poultry
Shampoo

Soft Drink
Soup

Tissues

Toilet Paper
Tomato Product
Toothpaste
Tuna Fish
Vegetables
Water

Yogurt

 

3.3 Prouuct SelectiouCriterig

The products within each product category were selected to provide the widest

variety of packaging options in each category. Each product was evaluated only on the

retail packaging components. The products were selected into the corresponding product

 

 

Stud}; xL
brand \\ a

 

(J)

Mi

>4?

1c Pro
d~ - .
esc”1111011

category in one of two ways. The first selection method was for products that exhibited a
unique packaging system within the product category. These packaging systems were
selected into the product category. The second selection method was for products with
packaging systems that were common among products within a particular category.
These packaging systems were selected on a size or quantity basis. In these cases, the
packaging system did not vary amongst the products, but the size of the package and
quantity of product varied. In these instances, three product sizes were selected to
represent the particular packaging system. The three sizes used were a single serving or
small size, a medium or regular family size, and a large or economy size product. These
were the two selection criteria for packaging systems in the study.

The product/packaging systems were selected on a random brand basis for the
study. Selection, as stated above, was based solely on a packaging basis. No specific
brand was targeted to comprise each product category.

The product categories were composed of samples from every applicable form of
product available. This included products that were frozen, shelf-stable, flesh and
refrigerated. The study was limited to these forms of products and limited to only those
products available in grocery stores.

Section 5.2 contains the data for every product group and a description of the
specific product type that comprises the product category. Appendix B contains a
description of each packaging system that was accepted into each particular product

category.

23

 

prepare:
itdii id".
giien a :
remind.
011110.18.

In order '.

551‘511311‘0.’

COI‘JPOIIer

 

Canon, p1;

(D

Th COm;

Th
1116 malerj
froIII R’m'c
some rigi.

compilner

3.4 Packaging Preparation Criteria:

The products that were selected in each product category underwent a series of
preparation techniques for data acquisition. The first procedure was the cataloging of the
individual product into the packaging materials database. Each individual product was
given a number that would be the identification for that product’s components for the
remainder of the study. The product was then removed from the packaging for weighing
or measuring. The packages were manipulated with extreme care during this procedure
in order to leave the packaging components in as pristine condition as possible.

The packaging components were then separated based on material. The
separation criteria were based upon the general properties and/or form of the packaging
components. This involved placing each packaging component, such as paperboard
carton, plastic film over-wrap, and plastic bottle, into a separate location. At this point,
each component was labeled with the same number as the product.

The packaging components were then “knocked down” or cut open, depending on
the material. This involved manipulating the packaging components into a “flat” form,
from which area measurements, thickness measurements and weights could be made.
Some rigid packages, such as plastic bottles and glass bottles, were not cut open. These

components were left in their original configuration.

24

acqumtt
HlCJICd.H
31503:»-

\letrit‘

accurate :7:

 

Sistem tar
wkdinrng
aFPIOth‘
C0n\er
711110111113 ft
Ounces per

MIMUOUn;

“ill €116 1H

L

4.

Chapter 4

METHODOLOGY

This chapter will focus on the materials used and procedures used during the data
acquisition portion of the study. This section includes a discussion of the methods used
to calculate the weight and volume of the packaging materials. Units of measurement are
also discussed.

4.1 Units of Measurement:

Metric units were chosen for use in this study. Working in metric provided more
accurate measurements and numerical analysis. Conversions from metric to any other
system can be done with a few simple conversion calculations, and since the data can be
used in many arenas, the most accuracy and convenience are preserved in the metric
approach.

Conversion to units that are better understood by American shoppers is not difficult.
Amounts reported as grams per 100 g of product (standard use basis) are identically
ounces per 100 ounces of product or lbs. per 100 lbs. of product. A calculation is required
for amounts reported as grams per 100 ml of product. In that case, multiplying by 0.0688

will give lbs. per 100 fl oz of product.

4.2 Materials/Eguiument:

The essential materials used in this study were the packaging material and to a
lesser extent, the products. The packaging components were prepared as described in
section 3.4 and were measured for volume and weight. The products were removed from

the packages and weighed. These processes required the use of several pieces of standard

25

equipn.
ohmic:

“LB L11»

11111.31;-

 

‘n-
ll'lfi't H“
H‘ltll{:‘lL‘\

TEL-limctc

 

 

 

deemed it

equipment. These included a gram scale, a digital micrometer, a metric ruler, a graduated
cylinder, and a fish tank (for volume measurements). A computer spreadsheet program
was also used to record data.

A Mettler PM 2000 gram scale was used to weigh the product, and the packaging
materials, to 0.01 grams.

A Mitutoyo Digimatic Micrometer series 293 was used to measure thickness to in
millimeters to a position of 0.001millimeter with a maximum distance of 25.4
millimeters. This was the place that was used in this study, since thickness accuracy was
deemed important. The thickness was measured in millimeters, but was reported in
centimeters.

A Wescott flexible ruler was used to measure the length, and width of the
packaging materials to 0.1cm.

A graduated cylinder was used to measure the volume of liquid products. This
information was used instead of product weights for these items. The graduated cylinder
measures volumes of liquids in milliliters. Three sizes of graduateed cylinders were
used, a lOOO-milliliter cylinder measuring to the nearest 10 ml point, and a 250-ml
cylinder measuring to the nearest 2 ml, and a 100-ml cylinder measuring to the nearest
milliliter

The fish tanks were used for measuring the volume of packaging material for
some rigid containers, such as glass bottles or large steel cans that could not be measured
through the area x thickness method. This was achieved by measuring the amount of
water displaced by the empty bottle. Three sizes of fish tanks, lO-gallon, lS-gallon and

25-gallon tank, were used for the various sizes of packages encountered.

26

The computer software that was used for data recording was Microsoft Excel ’97

and Quattro Pro Version 6.0 for Windows.

4.3 Data Acguisition Procedures:

4.3.1 Laboratory Boolfiet-uu;

Identification numbers were assigned to each product that corresponded to the
laboratory book page the data was entered on. The number was affixed, with permanent
marker, to the surface of each packaging material component. After the numbering
phase, specific information about the products used in the study was recorded:

Product Category:

Product Brand Name:

Product Manufacturer:

Date Purchased, Store, Price of Item:
Labeled Weight of Product (oz, g, ml):
Labeled Serving Size (oz, g, ml):

Labeled Servings per Container (oz, g, ml):
Measured Weight of Product (g, ml):
Packaging Weight(s) (g):

Packaging Material(s) Thickness (cm):
Packaging Material(s) Surface Area (cmz):
Packaging Material(s) Volume (cm3):
Description of Packaging:

Additional Information:

The information recorded varied with the product type. Solid products, as mentioned,
were weighed, while the volume of liquid products was recorded. The measuring of the
packaging materials areas and/or volumes varied depending on the rigidity of the
packaging system. Some rigid liquid containers were unable to be “knocked down”, and
therefore were measured using volume displacement. In these instances, the packaging

material surface area and thickness categories were left blank. The packaging description

required a detailed listing of the packaging components comprising the packaging

27

S) stem

prm Ide-

 

labeled '.
from the

“IE 01‘1;

111 1116 it“...

PlaCt‘d in:

 

 

system. The additional information category included relevant additional information

provided by the manufacturer.

4.3.2 Information Gatheriugirocedures:

The data for the product category, product brand name, product manufacturer,
labeled weight, labeled serving size, and labeled servings per container were obtained
from the package. The date of purchase, item price and purchase location information
was obtained from the sales receipt.

The next step was the measuring of the product weight. This was accomplished
in the following manner. All product was removed from the packaging system and was
placed into a separate ziploc style bag. Prior to product introduction, each bag was
weighed so that the weight of the bag could be subtracted from the overall weight of the
product. The bags of product were then weighed on the gram scale and the weights were
recorded, less the weight of the bag.

Liquid products were measured in a graduated cylinder. Three sizes of graduated
cylinder were available for this procedure. The graduated cylinder selected for use
depended on the amount of product that was going to be measured. For smaller liquid
product amounts, the smaller size was used, and for more product, a larger graduated
cylinder was used. The product was poured into the cylinder and given a chance to settle
before measurement.

The packaging components were then weighed on the Mettler gram scale. Each

packaging component was weighed separately during this phase. The weight of each

28

paelrg .-

COmNT .

31111110},
[liliirncL
111111.. 331d
Each cm

1116311“...

Commits:

 

 

packaging component was measured and recorded. The cumulative total for the
components was calculated and entered as the packaging system weight.

The thickness of each packaging component was determined through use of the
Mitutoyo Digital Micrometer. This instrument is a hand held unit that measures the
thickness of items less than 25.4 mm (1 inch) in thickness. The sample is installed in the
unit, and the dial/handle of the unit is rotated so that the instrument closes on the sample.
Each component of the packaging system was measured in three random places. These
measurements were averaged to give the mean thickness for the packaging component.

The next step was to measure the surface area of the individual packaging
component for packaging systems that could be “knocked down”. Examples of these
types of packaging systems included flexible packages and paperboard cartons. These
packages were “knocked down” and the components were separated to allow for ease in
measurement. The length and width of each packaging component was measured, in
centimeters, using the Wescott flexible ruler. These measurements were used to calculate
the surface area, in cm2, and the material volume, in cm3.

For rigid packaging systems, such as some plastic bottles or glass bottles, a
volume displacement method was used to determine the volume of packaging material in
each packaging system. The system consisted of a glass rectangular fish tank, water, and
a fixed ruler for measuring water height. The internal dimensions of the fish tank, length
and width, were measured, in centimeters, prior to introduction of the water. The water
level was set to a certain height and measured in centimeters before the package was

submerged. This provided the initial volume of the water in the fish tank. The packaging

system was then introduced into tank and was submerged in the water. To evacuate

29

trapped .
mfibtlit’.

‘..-...
he dillL

 

{1111011111 I

1116 men...

commas

 

MI

TI
iht‘ use Of
611th 011

the label
[he Pack

Pltidu C l

trapped air, a small hole was created in each rigid container. The water level was then
measured again and the volume of the entire system, water and package, was determined.
The difference between the final system volume and the initial water volume is the
amount of water displacement, or the volume of package material in the system.

This data was then entered into a computer spreadsheet program for calculation of
the manufacturer serving comparisons, the standard use comparisons and product weight
comparisons. The spreadsheets also calculated the packaging component volumes and

the cumulative total packaging system value to verify the values previously recorded.

4.4 Comparison Calculations:

The comparisons for each packaging system in the study were calculated through
the use of computer spreadsheet programs. Two types of comparisons were made, based
either on the packaging weight, or the volume of packaging material. A description of

each comparison will follow later in this section. The comparisons are as follows:

Volume of Packaging per Manufacturer Serving
Volume of Packaging per Standard Use
Volume of Packaging per Product Weight
Packaging Weight per Manufacturer Serving
Packaging Weight per Standard Use
Packaging Weight per Product Weight
The volume of packaging per manufacturer serving comparison was based upon
the labeled manufacturer number of servings found in the nutritional information table on

the packaging. The serving amount varied among products, depending on the type of

product, the amount of product and the caloric content of the product. This calculation

30

“as car:
I

we re:

trainer‘s

units of c

 

 

 

actual am
Results \\
Welders.

T

lal‘t‘lt‘d p

was carried out for all products that had a manufacturer serving size available. Results
were reported in units of cm3/serving.

The volume of packaging per standard use comparisons was based upon the
standard use basis of 100 calories per serving for foods. Other products, such as laundry
detergent, were compared using a different basis for the standard use amount. The
products for which this applied are discussed in section 5.5.1. Results were reported in
units of cm3/use.

The volume of packaging per product weight comparison was based upon the
actual amount of the product, either grams or milliliters, contained in the package.
Results were reported in units of cm3/gram for solid products and cm3/ml for liquid
products.

The packaging weight per manufacturer serving comparison was based upon the
labeled manufacturer number of servings found in the nutritional information table on the
packaging. The packaging weight was the physical weight of all packaging components
found in a particular packaging system. Results were reported in units of grams/servings.

The packaging weight per standard use comparison was based upon the standard
use basis of 100 calories per serving of product. As mentioned before, this was the
standard use amount used for a majority of the food products. Other products were
compared using different standard use amounts. Results were reported in units of
grams/use.

The packaging weight per product weight comparison was based upon the actual
amount of the product, either grams or milliliters, contained in the package. Results

were reported in units of gram/gram or gram/ml, depending on the type of product.

31

Chapter 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section contains the data for this study. Section 5.1 presents the summary
data for this study, and section 5.2 contains the comparison data for every product group
in the study. This portion of the report also contains a description of the least and most
packaging system for each product group. The remaining sections discuss the objectives
of the study, provide some data interpretation, and discuss various observations found

during the study.

5.1 Packaging Comparative Data:

The study compared the amount of packaging material used on a volume and
weight basis for 40 product groups containing 252 products. The data collected on each
product category allowed for the selection of the packaging option that used the least
material and the one that used the most material, per unit amount of product. In Table
5.1, the products that used the least materials are grouped in market basket 1. The
products that used the most materials are grouped in market basket 2. The table also
shows a comparison of the ratio of the total material associated with one unit amount of
each product using the packaging alternatives in the two market baskets. The table shows
that the products comprising market basket 1 used markedly less packaging material than
the products in market basket 2. The volume of packaging material per use in market
basket 2 was 7.5 times the volume in market basket 1. The packaging weight per use in
market basket 2 was 15.2 times the weight in market basket 1. The volume of packaging

per gram of product and the packaging weight per gram of product were 4.1 and 5.7

32

times. I;
beset. tr;
mire er;-
can rein

group rat

 

" i 0
pli'filkbl

times, respectively, as large in market basket 2 as in market basket 1. The comparisons
based on the number of uses or servings are the most relevant in educating consumers to
make choices that reduce generation of packaging waste. The data shows that consumers
can reduce waste generation by purchasing items from the least packaging materials
group rather than purchasing items from the most packaging materials group. Figure 5.1
presents this data in a bar chart.

Table 5.2 depicts the packaging weight comparisons for the least material and
most material packaging systems for each product group, and Table 5.3 Shows the
packaging volume comparisons. The values from Tables 5.2 and 5.3 were combined to

create market basket 1 and 2 seen in Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1.

Table 5.1 Comparison of Market Basket 1 to Market Basket 2

 

Packaging Packaging Packaging Volume Volume Volume
Weight/ Weight/ Weight! Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/
Product Manufacturer Standard Manufacturer Standard Product

 

 

 

Weight Serving Use Serving Use Weight
g/g g/serving g/use cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g
Market Basket 1 2.1 82.3 72.6 96.4 87.8 2.4
Market Basket 2 11.9 1100.5 1104.2 724.7 656.8 9.8
Ratio of Market
Basket 2 to 5.7 13.4 15.2 7.5 7.5 4.1

 

Market Basket 1

 

33

Figure 5.1 Comparison of Market Basket 1 to Market Basket 2

1200

 

 

400 -.

 

 

 

 

Market Basket 1: Least Packaging Material

Cl VOlume PEkagiDg/ ManTrfactureYServE: cm3/Serving
.rVolume Packaging/ Standard Use: cm3/use

g Packaging Wei ght/ Manufacturer Serving: g/serving

3 Packaging Weight/ Standard Use: g/use

 

34

000.00

2':'~:
00’

O
Q

i
:§

0003.99...

0009

bobzfiOOOOO O
90 O 0000

.Vooooofito

.;:z:.
9 O

0.9

t:

O.
n
QOQOQ‘O

33'

0‘

0

0‘0...
0

.9

i

o
o

Ii i:.$

O. 0‘09...

. . O .9. O
:3 °'
.0. 3
O

O
000

:23!
.0 ..
O

Ooofioooooooeoo
oooooocooo a

' , . x:
:9 e o.
e 000.
O 0
co
0.. 090:. 0’
O O

:i
: g.

0
0900.00.00.09.
09..

8

9 .96
00
609000
0009‘.
0....

o
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
Q
o
O
O
O
O
9
o
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O

090‘
3

:2

O

QQOOOQOO‘OOOOOOO

9.9.0.0.:OQOOOQO
06¢ ooooooooocobooo

00000900 ozocveeo
ecozoooooo 000000

000
00‘
cc.
Ob.
coo

0..
§::

oeooeoeceeeooee 0960000909
OOOOOOOeeooOvevv

0 00006900000000...

0 oeooo0oooooooooooooo

‘OOOQQOOQOOO‘OOOVQQOO

13

 

Market Basket 2: Most Packaging Material

Table 5.2 Least and Most Packaging Materials: Weight Comparisons

 

 

 

Market Basket 1 Market Basket 2
Least Packaging Material Most Packaging Material
Packaging Packaging Packaging Packaging Packaging Packaging
Weight/ Weight/ Weight! Weight/ Weight/ Weight/
Product Manufacturer Standard Product Manufacturer Standard Product
Category serving Use Weight serving Use Weight
g/serving g/use g/g g/serving g/use g/g
Baby Food 2.350 3.440 0.147 9.860 12.860 0.735
Baking Mix 0.261 0.194 0.015 6.460 4.516 0.143
Beer 16.000 16.205 0.045 267.698 254.187 0.702
Bread 0.499 0.589 0.017 0.573 0.633 0.018
Candy 2.430 1.191 0.064 6.524 3.376 0.189
Cereal 0.727 0.624 0.023 17.474 14.255 0.548
Cheese 0.322 0.286 0.01 1 55.080 57.503 1.848
Chips 0.962 0.593 0.034 7.732 4.761 0.272
Cleaners 2.932 2.728 0.091 4.309 4.127 0.070
Cookies 0.675 0.402 0.017 5.192 8.196 0.273
Crackers 0.225 0.374 0.015 2.402 3.764 0.151
Dinners 6.508 2.451 0.091 65.970 19.809 0.184
Dishwashing
Detergent- - 2.889 0.052 - 3.204 0.057
Autol
Dishwashing
Detergent- - 0.290 0.047 - 0.430 0.069
Handl
Drink Mix 0.223 0.234 0.385 3.153 3.198 0.186
Eggs 1.304 1.646 0.023 4.042 5.028 0.070
Fruit 0.662 0.877 0.004 56.997 82.185 0.457
Gum2 0.444 - 0.098 0.957 - 0.385
Hand Soap1 - 0.043 0.021 - 1.170 0.234
Ice Cream 3.64] 1.339 0.034 3.748 2.452 0.053
Juices 4.362 1.339 0.018 80.096 79.680 0.332
Laundry 0.432 0.427 0.007 19.323 18.830 0.156
Detergent
Lunch Meat 0.438 1.036 0.015 6.570 10.461 0.110
Margarinez 0.650 - 0.045 1.803 - 0.121
Meat 1.234 0.366 0.009 4.273 2.029 0.034
Milk 1.550 1.307 0.007 22.768 17.612 0.095
Paper Towel 0.035 0.077 0.015 0.151 0.180 0.099
Pasta 0.305 0.146 0.005 8.380 3.458 0.094
Pet Food’ - 1.369 0.022 - 35.157 0.227
Poultry 0.309 0.219 0.003 1.443 1.050 0.017

 

35

 

11'.»
lilllt".
In?

 

r

The p.1
d13h11d5
3min:

 

I
.1116 Pd:
mlrgui:
“11111110:
1111017713:

 

Shampoo 0.501 0.811 0.081 1.050 1.615 0.162
Soft Drink 6.419 6.461 0.027 232.797 231.510 0.965
Soup 1.955 1.675 0.059 105.177 93.276 0.454
Tissues 0.230 0.435 0.034 0.714 1.438 0.091
Toilet Paper 0.004 0.027 0.098 0.016 0.113 0.068
Tomato
Product; 0.895 - 0.052 1.305 - 0.074
Toothpaste 0.170 0.156 0.099 2.202 2.006 1.276
Tuna Fish 12.852 10.640 0. r 81 47.945 54.009 0.569
Vegetables 0.320 0.882 0.004 15.735 50.758 0.127
Water2 4.057 - 0.015 16.159 - 0.056
Yogurt 5.390 8.853 0.042 14.459 15.344 0.081
TOTALS 82.273 72.621 2.071 1100.537 1104.180 11.852

 

 

 

 

' The packaging weight per manufacturer serving comparison was not done for the
dishwashing detergent, hand soap and pet food categories since no manufacturer
serving/use information was available on the packages.

2 The packaging weight per standard use comparison was not done for the gum,
margarine, tomato product and water categories. This is due to the product not having
nutritional value or being used as flavoring instead of as a source of nutrition. Detailed
information regarding standard use levels is presented in section 5.4.

36

Pit"
Ca:._,

BAKE:
Bt-
Br;
C (it.

(Cf;

 

 

Ch;
Clea
C 00
Crag
Din

Dish“

Table 5.3 Least and Most Packaging Materials: Volume Comparisons

 

 

 

Market Basket 1 Market Basket 2
Least Packaging Material Most Packaging Material
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Packaging] Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging] Packaging/ Packaging]
Product Manufacturer Standard Use Product Manufacturer Standard Product
Category serving Weight serving Use Weight
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g
Baby Food 2.347 3.431 0.147 6.980 9.154 0.523
Baking Mix 0.030 0.022 0.001 5.580 3.900 0.124
Beer 7.700 7.799 0.022 148.370 140.882 0.389
Bread 0.535 0.632 0.018 0.509 0.562 0.016
Candy 2.165 1.061 0.057 9.079 4.698 0.263
Cereal 2.639 2.265 0.083 20.1 14 16.409 0.629
Cheese 0.215 0.191 0.007 29.542 30.842 0.991
Chips 1.113 0.686 0.039 10.640 6.552 0.374
Cleaners 3.633 3.380 0.113 4.828 4.624 0.078
Cookies 1.431 0.427 0.018 12.545 19.803 0.680
Crackers 0.207 0.344 0.014 2.821 4.421 0.177
Dinners 7.099 2.673 0.099 69.417 20.844 0.194
Dishwashing
Detergent- - 2.792 0.050 - 3.423 0.061
Autol
Dishwashing
Detergent- - 0.219 0.035 - 0.257 0.042
Handl
Drink Mix 0.209 0.220 0.361 1.651 1.674 0.097
Eggs 18.118 22.871 0.320 9.986 12.423 0.174
Fruit 0.530 0.702 0.003 18.223 26.277 0.146
Gum2 0.359 - 0.079 1.070 - 0.385
Hand Soap1 - 0.041 0.019 - 1.046 0.209
Ice Cream 4.248 1.562 0.040 4.662 3.050 0.066
Juices 4.398 4.370 0.018 38.808 38.604 0.161
Laundry 0.406 0.401 0.006 12.271 1 1.958 0.099
Detergent
Lunch Meat 0.373 0.881 0.013 6.884 10.960 0.115
Margarine2 0.784 - 0.055 1.720 - 0.1 15
Meat 13.342 3.954 0.094 33.777 16.039 0.270
Milk 1.621 1.366 0.007 21.482 16.617 0.090
Paper Towel 0.037 0.081 0.015 0.162 0.193 0.106
Pasta 0.582 0.278 0.010 6.316 2.606 0.071
Pet Food' - 4.278 0.069 - 5.239 0.034
Poultry 0.348 0.246 0.004 1 1.733 8.536 0.136
Shampoo 0.387 0.626 0.063 1.109 1.706 0.171
Sofi Drink 5.257 5.291 0.022 140.212 139.438 0.581

 

37

 

 

 

I “it \1
diSil't\ 335i
$1?“ng

:Tlll’ \0
margm;
null-1110.1;
lDl‘om .11

 

Soup 1.798 1.540 0.055 33.749 29.930 0.146
Tissues 0.208 0.393 0.030 0.904 1.821 0.1 16
Toilet Paper 0.004 0.030 0.109 0.015 0.102 0.061
Tomato
Products 0.660 - 0.038 0.971 - 0.055
Toothpaste 0.219 0.202 0.128 2.385 2.173 1.382
Tuna Fish 3.020 2.500 0.042 27.083 30.509 0.321
Vegetables 0.334 0.921 0.004 4.472 14.425 0.036
Water2 4.509 - 0.017 10.389 - 0.036
Yogurt 5.524 9.073 0.044 14.274 15.147 0.080
TOTALS 96.389 87.749 2.368 724.733 656.844 9.800

 

 

 

 

l The volume of packaging per manufacturer serving comparison was not done for the
dishwashing detergent, hand soap and pet food categories Since no manufacturer
serving/use information was available on the packages.

2 The volume of packaging per standard use comparison was not done for the gum,
margarine, tomato product and water categories. This is due to the product not having
nutritional value or being used as flavoring instead of as a source of nutrition. Detailed
information regarding standard use levels is presented in section 5.4.

38

E?

C‘—
|l|
0’)

 

 

packagir
Comparl
@um
PNucl
COmpar
Compiu
Onthe]

meme]

Table 5.4 provides a description of the packaging systems included in Tables 5.2
and 5.3. The packaging systems that most often appeared in market basket 1 included
paper/plastic/foil laminate pouches, single low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bags,
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, and plastic pouches. Market basket 2 was
primarily composed of packages that used multiple components in the packaging system.
These systems include paperboard cartons with internal plastic sealed bags, amber and
clear glass jars with paper labels, expanded polystyrene tray (PS) with plastic wrap, and
corrugated boxes with plastic/foil pouches inside.

Table 5.5 provides a comparison of market basket 1 to market basket 2 using the
packaging weight per standard use comparison. The packaging weight per standard use
comparison was selected for this table based on the belief that it was the most relevant
comparison used in the study, as previously mentioned. For the gum, margarine, tomato
product and water product categories the packaging weight per manufacturer serving
comparison was used. This was due to the packaging weight per standard use
comparison not being done for these categories. The reasoning for this varies depending
on the product group. The individual reasoning for each product groups affected in this

manner is discussed in section 5.2.

39

 

P1011

 

(111‘.
Bahia:

Bee
8100

 

C 13.x

C611

Table 5.4 Packaging System Descriptions

 

 

Product Market Basket 1: Market Basket 2:
Least Packaging Material Most Packaging Material
Group Packaging Description Packaging Description
Baby Food Paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch Clear glassjar, metal lid, paper label
Baking mix Plastic pillow pouch pPzfingoard box, 2-plece steel can, plastlc
Beer 6 aluminum cans, plastic ring holder Paperboard carton, 6 amber glass bottles
Bread LDPE plastic bag, inner plastic wrap LDPE plastic bag, inner plastic wrap
Can (1 Plastic pillow pouch, foil wrap, paper LDPE plastic bag, paperboard backing,
y cup plastic wraps
Cereal LDPE plastic bag 8 paperboard boxes, 8 plastlc bags, outer
plastlc wrap
Cheese Plastic pillow pouch gsgzgilc Jar, metal closure, inner plastlc
Chips Plastic/paper laminate bag Paperboard tube, paper/plastic/foil seal,
HDPE plastic lid
Cleaners HDPE plastic bottle HDPE bottle
Cookies Plastic/foil laminate pillow pouch Paperboard carton, plastlc/fOll lamlnate
pouch, PS tray
Crackers LDPE plastic bag Paperboard carton, plastic pouches
D' Paperboard carton, Plastic/foiI/paper Paperboard carton, EPS tray, Paper tray,
Inners . .
laminate pouch plastlc wrap
DlSh Soap, HDPE plastic bottle PET bottle
hand
Dish Soap, HDPE plastic bottle Paperboard box, plastlc/fOll lamlnate
auto outer wrap
Drink Mix Plastic/foil laminate pouch Ezgzrizoard tube, HDPE hd’ metal “d and
Eggs EPS foam carton Pulpboard carton
Fruit Plastic mesh bag, paper label Clear glassjar, metal lid
Gum Plastic outer bag, 4 plastic/foil wraps, Paperboard sleeve, plastic blister pack,
paper gum wraps foil seal
Hand Soap Plastic outer wrap, 3 plastic/foil Paperboard outer carton, PET plastic
laminate wraps bottle
Ice Cream HDPE plastic tub Paperboard carton, plastic lid
Juice Paperboard tube, metal top and bottom Clear glass bottle, metal cap
Laundry Plastic bag HDPE bottle
Detergent
Lunch meat LDPE plastic pouch Paperboard carton, plastic pouch
Margarine Paperboard carton, 4 paper wraps HDPE plastic bottle
Meat EPS tray, plastic wrap EPS tray, plastic film cover, laminated

 

40

 

Ski:
Soft if
81» ..
ll».
1011c! Z
10:;
Prue"

. _‘L
T011”;-

 

 

 

lunal
\It‘gclu

“In

YUQl
\‘

\

Milk

Paper Towel
Pasta
Pet Food
Poultry
Shampoo
Sofi Drink
Soup
Tissues

Toilet tissue
Tomato
Product

Toothpaste

Tuna Fish

Vegetables
Water
Yogurt

LDPE plastic pouch

LDPE plastic wrap

Plastic pillow pouch
Plastic/paper laminate bag
LDPE bag

PET bottle

PET bottle

Paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch

Plastic outer wrap, 8 plastic tissue
wraps
LDPE plastic wrap

PET bottle
Plastic self-standing tube

2-piece steel can, paper label

LDPE bag
HDPE plastic bottle

6 plastic cups, plastic/foil laminate seal

plastic film covering

6 HDPE pigmented bottles, plastic outer
wrapping

8 LDPE plastic wraps, outer plastic wrap
EPS tray, plastic wrap

2-piece steel can, paper label

EPS tray, plastic wrap

HDPE bottle

Paperboard carton, 6 clear glass bottles
Clear glass jar, metal cap, paper label
Paperboard box, plastic wrap

LDPE plastic wraps

Plastic bottle

Paperboard box, plastic molded pump

Paperboard carton, 3 PET cups, 3 2-piece
steel cans
2-piece steel can, paper label

Paperboard carton, 4 PET plastic bottles
PS tray, plastic/foil laminate seal

 

 

 

 

41

l1.“

 

 

The

Table 5.5 Comparison of Packaging Weight/Standard Use for Market Basket 1 & 2

 

 

Market Basket 1 Market Basket 2
Product Group Packaging Packaging Ratio
Weight/ Weight/
Standard Use Standard Use Basket 2 to
g/use g/use Basket 1
Baby Food 3.440 12.860 3.74
Baking mix 0.194 4.516 23.28
Beer 16.205 254.187 15.69
Bread 0.589 0.633 1.07
Candy 1.191 3.376 2.83
Cereal 0.624 14.255 22.84
Cheese 0.286 57.503 201.06
Chips 0.593 4.761 8.03
Cleaners 2.728 4.127 1.51
Cookies 0.402 8.196 20.39
Crackers 0.374 3.764 10.06
Dinners 2.451 19.809 8.08
Dish Soap, hand 0.290 3.204 11.05
Dish Soap, auto 2.889 0.430 0.15
Drink Mix 0.234 3.198 13.67
Eggs 1.646 5.028 3.05
Fruit 0.877 82.185 93.71
Guml 0.444 0.957 2.16
Hand Soap 0.043 1.170 27.21
Ice Cream 1.339 2.452 1.83
Juice 4.334 79.680 18.38
Laundry 0.427 18.830 44.10
Detergent
Lunch meat 1.036 10.461 10.10
Margarinel 0.650 1.803 2.77
Meat 0.366 2.029 5.54
Milk 1.307 17.612 13.48
Paper Towel 0.077 0.180 2.34
Pasta 0.146 3.458 23.68
Pet Food 1.369 35.157 25.68
Poultry 0.219 1.050 4.79
Shampoo 0.81 1 1.615 1.99
Soft Drink 6.461 231.510 35.83
Soup 1.675 93 .276 55.69
Tissues 0.435 1.438 3 .31
Toilet tissue 0.027 0.1 13 4.19

 

42

 

liq—EL

l The park

 

 

Tomato Productl
Toothpaste
Tuna Fish
Vegetables
Waterl
Yogurt

 

0.895
0.156
10.640
0.882
4.057
8.853

1.305
2.006
54.009
50.758
16.159
15.344

 

1.46

12.86
5.08
57.55
3.98

1.73

 

 

l The packaging weight per manufacturer serving comparison was used for these categories.

43

5.2 lndi\l

 

packaging
are calculi

0105 refer

 

 

 

smallest \;
packaging
for this co.
group,

E:
packagipi
Coml‘iifiS
This COIT
gimp ]
Sttilllllard
The Slat
product
the am
the V011
VOIume
liquids
all-Mun

the ma

MdividerodJuct Group Data:

The analysis of each product category is based upon weight and volume of
packaging materials. From these, weight per serving and volume of material per serving
are calculated based on the number of servings or uses in the container. The volume
basis refers to the volume of the solid packaging material that surrounds the product. The
smallest value of packaging weight per standard use represents the least amount of
packaging per amount of product for the product group being analyzed. The largest value
for this comparison signifies the most packaging material per amount of product for the
group.

Each product group is analyzed using Six comparisons, three based on volume of
packaging material, and three based on packaging material weight. The first volume
comparison is the volume of packaging material per number of manufacturer servings.
This comparison uses the labeled number of servings or uses for each product in the
group. The second volume comparison is the volume of packaging per number of
standard uses. The standard use values are based upon 100 calories per serving for foods.
The standard use comparison for other product groups is based upon the amount of
product consumed per use. The comment section for this type of product group contains
the description of how the standard use was determined. The third volume comparison is
the volume of packaging material per gram of product. This comparison is based on the
volume of packaging material divided by the measured weight of the product. For
liquids, this comparison is based on the volume of packaging material divided by the
amount of liquid (ml). The first and second packaging weight comparisons are based on

the manufacturer serving and standard use, respectively. The third packaging weight

44

comparist
the meluu
measured

11
discussitl

prtlduu g

Packagir
indicates
rotitlcl

file prod

comparison is packaging weight per product weight comparison. This comparison uses
the measured product weight in comparison to the packaging weight. For liquids, the
measured volume of product (ml) is compared to the packaging weight.

The comparisons for each data group are listed in Tables 5.6 — 5.45. The
discussion section for each product group includes a comment section describing the
product group.

The bold highlight in each data table indicates the product that used the least
packaging material per amount of product in the product group. The italicized data
indicates the product that used the most packaging material per amount of product in the
product group. Bar charts, figures 5.3 - 5.42 are also included to aid in the analysis of

the product/packaging comparisons.

45

uuhmtgt

 

for the dr}
form. l‘hcl

informallo

Product
Number I
69

I33
146

Pu
Package Cl

amela} m.

BABY FOOD:

The baby food product category consisted of 4 product/package systems. The
product group included dry and pre—mixed baby cereals. The standard use comparison
for the dry baby food products were based upon calorie information in a non-prepared
form. The standard use comparison for the prepared baby food is based upon calorie

information for prepared baby food.

Table 5.6 Baby Food Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Wei ght/ Weight/ Weight!
manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use
69 3.182 5.192 0.208 0.164 2.505 4.088
70 3.413 5.730 0.229 0.201 2.990 5.020
133 6. 980 9.154 0. 523 0. 735 9.806 12. 860
146 2.347 3.431 0.147 0.147 2.350 3.440

 

Product 146 used the least packaging material in this product group. This
package consisted of a paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 133 used the most

packaging material in the product group. This package consisted of a clear glass jar with

a metal recloseable lid and a paper label.

46

(J

    

>00000000

12 .. , ,. ,

10 _ _ _ _ . _

0.00.0.0..000

0
00.00:
0.000.000.

:00...

0
0000000000 0000.00.00.

.co-cvocvvovoovv-
000.00.00.0000000 00.00
00.000.000.0000.0000....0.0

0.0.
0... .0000...

.004
0 0......«00000

.

.

000.0000. 00
X 0

00
00.000.000.000...

:0
0000000000..
.09.:

000:.
0...
0.00.000.0
0.0.:
0.00.

D
0
O
O
O
.

0.00.

0.00.0 0.0.00.0
0;
0.0..

vvvvvvvvvvvvv'vc
0.3.. .
O00000000.00..0.900..00.0:::..0
.00....

0
0 00.00.00...
0000.0..0000000.0

00.0000000000000

 

 

0v... .0?
.000
0.0.0

 

 

Product Number

Vol—um—e PaEkaging/ fitnfactfier Serviig: cm3/serving

[:1
.Volume Packaging/ Standard Use: cm3/use
Q Packaging Weight/ Manufacturer Serving: g/servin g
E

Packaging Weight/ Standard Use: g/use

Figure 5.2 Baby Food Comparative Data

47

hpeofm

110515 101 t

 

non-preru

\
Protect
MW

40
41
43

‘
\

d

BAKING MIX:

The baking mix product category consisted of 5 product/package systems. The
type of mix chosen for analysis was muffin mix. The calorie information, used as the
basis for the standard use comparison, was based upon calories of the baking mixes in a

non-prepared form.

Table 5.7 Baking Mix Comparative Data

 

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight/ Wei ght/ Wei ght/
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use
40 0.030 0.022 0.001 0.015 0.261 0.194
41 4.073 2.359 0.099 0.086 3.520 2.039
42 5.580 3. 900 0.124 0.143 6. 460 4.516
43 0.210 0.264 0.009 0.099 0.246 0.310
44 0.991 0.865 0.031 0.035 1.142 0.997

 

Product 40 used the least packaging material in the product group. The package
for this product consisted of a plastic pillow pouch sealed on the top and bottom with a
fin vertical seal. Product 42 used the most packaging material in the product group. This
package consisted of a paperboard outer box, a plastic pillow pouch containing the

muffin mix and a 2-piece steel can containing blueberry glaze.

48

I.)

F.

14- -,

 

.

0.0.0300

0.0.0..
0
990000199000

.00. .0

  

   

0.0.0.0...000

0.....00000000.
000.000.0000....

0
0
0
O
0
0
Q
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
Q
Q
9
0
0
0
0
9
O

.0
O'QO00909006900

0 0.
000.00.00.00000000.0000

199.009.:
0.00000000000.000 0.00.00 00.00.00.000000 0000.00.00.00

X

00 VVVNQCOMV
o....00.0..00:0
00.00.00zz0z0
.00..... 0 :0
00.00.00.000

0
00
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
.0
.0
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
.
0
O
Q
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
C
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.

 

 

0
OOO0000O0.0.00.9...0....0:10.000::§COOOOOOOOODO
.000.

00.0.00...0000000.000.0.0

0.00.00.00.09000.

 

 

 

 

 

9 133 146

Product Number

DVBlume Packagingfianufacmrfiwing: cm3/serving
.Volume Packaging! Standard Use: cm3/use

n Packaging Weight! Manufacturer Serving: g/serving
Packaging Weight! Standard Use: g/use

 

Figure 5.3 Baking Mix Comparative Data

49

:1:
#7“.
it:

has 36..

x

137001..

\uml‘tt

COX

“:1

BEER:
The beer product category consisted of 6 product/package systems. Light beer

was selected for each product in the study. The data for each is as follows:

Table 5.8 Beer Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging! Packaging/ Packaging! Weight! Weight! Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Use ml product ml product Manufacturer Standard Use
servmg servmg
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/ml g/ml g/5erving g/use
243 24.118 24.393 0.067 0.088 31.458 31.817
244 25.283 25.467 0.070 0.088 31.507 31.737
245 112.307 112.177 0.310 0.514 186.315 186.098
246 122.917 111.594 0.308 0.333 132.930 120.685
247 7.700 7.7 99 0.022 0.045 16.000 16.205
248 148.3 70 140. 882 0.389 0. 702 26 7. 698 254.187

 

Product number 247 used the least packaging in the product group. This package
consisted of 6 aluminum cans and a plastic ring holder. The most packaging is the group
was found in product number 248. This package consisted of 6 amber glass bottles and a

paperboard holder.

50

31111

350

200

100

Figure f

300- ,

150

 

.'

“3
“Q... .
6.......

0
0 0 0
z . 0
0 .0 0
000000....0ox

:000000000000

 

00
$3
'1

9

0000000000.
9000000009
OOOOM O

h...

0.:

00

X
I

000
O.
006

58

000.000....
20.9.00.
0...

00
0.0

O
O
0

.
0.0v0vovovvv
g 00.00..

0

0000......

0
'i
O
0
a.

0
Q 00 0 Oi
0... 0
00:0 0 0
00 0 0 0
00.000...

"tiff“

.0 0.
0.000.000.0000.

0:9...

0
00000000000000.000000

v000000

50

.... v.
00...:0 0
0 0 0
2:: ' '

000

'13

00
O .0.
2..
0....

04. O
O O
O

O

v
03
‘1
O

‘.... 4.0QCOOOO0.0NQCOO‘QO0.....OOQ‘OOO

3

........
23.31

0‘
O
O

0.
O 0
O§O

0
.0.q..0..0

 

 

 

 

243 244 245 246
Product Number

Cl VoTumve' Packaging! manufacturief servin g cm3/servin g
.Volume Packaging! Standard Use: cm3/use

g Packaging Weight! manufacturer serving: g/serving

9

Packaging Weight! Standard Use: g/use

Figure 5.4 Beer Comparative Data

51

(I:
F—V-Q
7,»

txpcsc'i

 

PTL-‘dLM
Number

Product ‘
Selected
the PTOdl
“16 pad

Omer LIZ

BREAD:
The bread product category consisted of 3 product/package systems. The product

type selected within the bread family was sliced white bread.

Table 5.9 Bread Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight/ Weight/ Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use
77 0.535 0.632 0.018 0.017 0.499 0.589
78 0.511 0.456 0.011 0.015 0.676 0.603
79 0.509 0.562 0.016 0.018 0.573 0. 633

 

The bread category resulted in similar values for each of the products analyzed.
Product 77 used the least packaging material in this product group. This product was
selected because the packaging weight per standard use comparison was the lowest for
the product group. Product 79 used the most packaging material in this product group.
The package for product 77 consisted of a single LDPE bag. Product 79 consisted of an

outer LDPE bag and a white plastic inner wrap around the bread.

52

{'1 8

(lb

0.5

04

0.1 _

0.0 .

Figure 5

0.8.7,. , 7.77,,

0.7.7.77 , . 7 , ,,,,,,

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.2 .7

0.1

 

 

 

0.0

 

Product Number

El VolumeiPackagingi/ manufacturer serving: cm3/serving W,
lVolume Packaging/ Standard Use: cmS/use

.Packaging Weight/ manufacturer serving: g/serving
mPackaging Weight/ Standard Use: g/use

Figure 5.5 Bread Comparative Data

53

m
_L.’
/

a ‘ \
we.

I x] J

CANDY:

The candy product group consisted of 6 product/package systems. The candy

selected for analysis in this study was chocolate peanut butter cups.

Table 5.10 Candy Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight/ Weight/ Weight/
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use
71 6.773 3.582 0.200 0.083 2.795 1.478
72 2.165 1.061 0.057 0.064 2.430 1.191
73 7.455 1.757 0.093 0.098 7.830 1.845
74 3.655 1.459 0.081 0.069 3.120 1.246
75 9. 079 4. 698 0. 263 0.189 6. 524 3. 3 76
76 1.372 0.675 0.036 0.068 2.567 1.263

 

Product 72 used the least packaging material overall in this product group. This
product was selected for the market basket since it had the lowest packaging weight per
standard use value. The packaging for Product 72 consisted of a plastic outer bag,
individual foil wrapping for each candy and a paper cup that contains each candy.
Product 75 used the most packaging material for this product group. The package
consisted of a plastic (LDPE) outer bag, an inner paperboard tray holding the candies,
individual paper/plastic laminate outer candy wrappings, paperboard candy backing

cards, and individual paper cups holding each candy.

54

9.;

J

FIEUre .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8?: "$2

990009.009.
006600.
:23
_Qvoooooooooo

0.0...
0.000

0
O
0
O
o

 

 

 

 

O
2.3..

O

O O

O
m
00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Product Number

Dvolumc Pafiging/ manufacturer serving: cm3/serving
.Volume Packaging! Standard Use: cm3/use
gPackaging Weight! manufacturer serving: g/serving

EPackaging Weight! Standard Use: g/use

l.___-_“#._ _,__t _ , __ . ._.___

Figure 5.6 Candy Comparative Data

55

5
PlkldUL

\'.'.m l";

J
'J V'JI

-‘- o
(J:

0‘

I

/

PaCka
{Ound
CQmp

1319811

CEREAL:
The cereal category was composed of 9 different product/packaging types. This category

included oatmeal and dry cereal. The dry cereals selected for analysis were Cheerios and

 

Tastee-os.
Table 5.1 1 Cereal Comparative Data
Product Volume of Volume of Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number packaging/ packaging/ packaging/ weight/ weight/ weight/
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard use
serving weight weight servings
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use
1 15.906 10.617 0.3981 0.119 4.763 3.173
2 4.517 2.966 0.1112 0.0891 3.618 2.376
3 6.374 5.695 0.2034 0.1183 3.707 3.312
25 4.539 3.178 0.1141 0.0972 3.866 2.707
26 5.874 4.11 0.1475 0.1321 5.258 3.679
4 11.648 10.056 1.0263 0.8219 9.388 8.105
5 9.827 8.967 0.3288 0.2624 7.842 7.155
6 2.639 2.265 0.0831 0.0229 0.727 0.624
7 20.114 16. 409 0.6289 0.5484 17.4 74 I 4. 255

 

Product 6 was found to produce the least packaging in this category. This

package consisted of a single low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bag. Product 7 was

found to produce the most packaging in this category. This packaging system was

composed of 8 individual paperboard boxes, 8 plastic internal bags, and an LDPE outer

plastic wrapping.

56

”1‘1

10

)-

FIEUre

 

25

20. ,

15. ,

 

0
9....
...

0000.00.00...

0.0090...000.00.00.000.9000000000000

3xmrmrzeemwmzmmmt'

00000

0.. 00.0.0.0...0
00000000000000.0000.
00000000000000.000000

00. 00.00.00.000
.99....9090000000
...0000000.000.000.000...

00
00.000.000.00. 0.0...

3:333:

9000..
000.000.00.00

0.
.9...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 25 26 4 5
Product number

Volume of packaging/manufacturers serving: cm3/serving

Cl
I Volume of packaging/standard use: cm3/use
a Packaging weight/manufacturer serving: g/serving

Packaging weight/standard use: g/use

Figure 5.7 Cereal Comparative Data

57

 

 

 

    

00000000

000 00.00.0000.
000000000000 00000000040000.00-000

00000000

00.000000000000000 00.000.000.0000000000‘0006

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
a
0
0
0

0. 00 00.30.0000.
O....O.."

0. 0
0.0.00.0... 0

0
0000

(“'3
l3:
”*1

in th

to:
Pro
ins

“it

CHEESE:

The cheese product group consisted of 10 product/package systems. The products

in this group included block cheese, sliced cheese and cheese spread.

Table 5.12 Cheese Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging

Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight/ Weight/ Weight/

Number Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use

serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use

147 0.215 0.191 0.007 0.011 0.322 0.286
148 2.526 2.211 0.087 0.071 2.063 1.806
149 1.388 2.303 0.073 0.059 1.129 1.873
150 0.715 0.997 0.033 0.029 0.619 0.863
151 1.023 0.842 0.034 0.035 1.076 0.886
152 2.004 2.957 0.074 0.071 1.933 2.852
153 0.797 0.696 0.027 0.024 0.705 0.616
154 1.773 1.878 0.060 0.059 1.719 1.820
155 29. 542 30. 842 0. 991 1. 848 55.080 5 7. 503
156 1.893 3.031 0.065 0.059 1.728 2.767

 

Product number 147 used the least packaging in this product group. This package
consisted of a plastic vacuum-sealed pouch. Product 155 used the most packaging in this
product group. This package consisted of a ceramic recloseable jar with a rubber gasket,
inside of which a sealed plastic bag contained the cheese product. The bag was sealed

with two metal clamps.

58

.111

.,
3H

J

'JI
O

45

40

35

     
  

..0.00..00. 00.000.000.0000000090000 0 0
00000000... 0 0 0 o 0
000000000.

000.

0.0.0000.
...000.
00.000

 

30

000

O

      
   
   

.0

0

0

20

.- ‘ .
.. .~ .
M”OMOWNO”OOOOCO0.0.9.9.”99 00.009
0000
0

0
O. 0.9000000000000.006000.00.00.000.0000......0000000000000000.00.00 .0 0 0
.0 .0000000000 .00. 000000 .000 00 0.00.00. 00 0000000000...

0.0.0.0..

000

0

0.0

   

00... 0
00000000

   

:0:”OOO.“Q”Q”OO.” .09:
0 0 000.000.000.000000000000

 

147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154

- 155 156
Product Number

DVolume Packaging/ manufacturer serving: cm3/serving
.Volume Packaging/ Standard Use: cm3/use
nPackaging Weight/ manufacturer serving: g/serving

EPackaging Weight/ Standard Use: g/use

l__,_ #_ ___~____

Figure 5.8 Cheese Comparative Data

59

Cilfl

SClCClC

a
PW‘ddt

\umbc

Pails
fin\e
COHSE

S€MEQ

CHIPS:

 

selected for the product group was plain potato chips.

Table 5.13 Chip Comparative Data

This product group consisted of 5 product/package systems. The type of chip

 

Product Volume of Volume of Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number packaging/ packaging/ packaging/ weight/ weight/ weight/
Manufacturer Standard Uses Product Product Manufacturer Standard uses
serving Weight weight servings
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use
35 1.705 1.108 0.0594 0.0522 1.500 0.976
36 2.591 1.605 0.0851 0.0726 2.210 1.369
37 1.113 0.686 0.0392 0.0339 0.962 0.593
38 10. 640 6.552 0.3744 0.2720 7. 732 4. 761
39 5.294 3.319 0.1897 0.1701 4.746 2.976

 

Product 37 was found to use the least packaging in this product group. This
package consisted of a plastic/paper-laminated bag, sealed on the top and bottom, with a
fin vertical seal. Product 38 used the most packaging in the product group. This package
consisted of a paperboard tube with an aluminum bottom, a paper/foil/plastic laminate

sealed top and a plastic (HDPE) recloseable lid.

60

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Product number

9 if f F _. Efififlfimé ofiiac—kaging/manufacture—r‘ss—e—rvingz‘cm37serving T T
I Volume of packaging/standard use: cm3/use
g Packaging weight/manufacturer serving: g/servin g

5 Packaging weight/standard use: g/use

Figure 5.9 Chip Comparative Data

61

ml 101

E“
PIXEL.»

V396.
..._-.

173
1‘5

:49

CLEANERS:
The cleaner group was composed of 4 product/package systems. This group was
made entirely of floor cleaners. The standard use comparison was made using '4: cup (59

ml for liquid product or 30 g for dry product) as the use amount.

Table 5.14 Cleaners Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight/ Weight/ Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Use ml product ml product Manufacturer Standard Use
uses uses
cm3/uses cm3/use cm3/ml g/ml g/uses g/use
173 3.681 3.633 0.061 0.062 3.716 3.668
1 75 4. 828 4. 624 0. 078 0. 070 4. 309 4.127
249 3.475 3.288 0.056 0.063 3.948 3.736
cm3/g g/g
250 3.633 3.380 0.113 0.091 2.932 2.728

 

Product 250 used the least packaging material in the product group based on
weight per manufacturer’s use and standard use values. This package consisted of a
laminated paperboard box. Product 175 used the most packaging in this product group.

This package consisted of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle.

62

 

.........
.... .....
: ..
..
..o 2
....... .
... .4...

 

 

...... ..........
..... . ... ......

.... ..... .

..... .....

..... .o ..

 

 

Product Number

mg 7

cm3/serv

Cl Volume Packaging manufacturer serving

cm3/use

.Volume Packaging/ Standard Use

mg

: g/serv

Weight/ manufacturer serving

a Packaging

g/use

g Packaging Weight/ Standard Use

Data

1V6

Figure 5 .10 Cleaners Comparat

63

Vt

COOKIES:

The cookie product category consisted of 11 product/package systems. This
product group consisted mainly of chocolate chip cookies. Fudge sandwich cookies and
chocolate/fudge shortbread cookies were included because different packaging systems
were found for these items.

Table 5.15 Cookie Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight/ Weight/ Weight/
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use
17 3.892 2.425 0.121 0.045 1.443 0.899
18 10.932 8.283 0.414 0.118 3.103 2.351
19 1.905 1.402 0.070 0.056 1.509 1.110
20 6.675 5.407 0.234 0.164 4.684 3 .795
21 5.953 4.857 0.251 0.024 0.567 0.462
22 3.730 2.943 0.141 0.053 1.408 1.111
23 0.716 0.427 0.018 0.017 0.675 0.402
24 7.133 3.400 0.170 0.087 3.650 1.742
27 12. 545 1 9. 803 0. 680 0. 2 73 5.192 8.196
28 4.887 2.730 0.137 0.127 4.553 2.543
29 6.468 2.754 0.143 0.042 1.884 0.802

 

Product 23 used the least packaging material in this product group based on
packaging weight per standard use. The package for this product consisted of a
plastic/foil laminate pillow pouch. The pouch was sealed on the top and bottom with a
vertical fin seal. Product 27 used the most packaging material for the product group.
This package was composed of a gable-top paperboard carton, a plastic/ foil laminate
pouch and a polystyrene (PS) tray. The plastic/foil pouch contained the polystyrene tray,

which held the cookies.

2’

1
0000000.... 00000000000000
22.22.00.10;0OOQOOOO’OOOOO

. .... . ........ .....

OOOzOOOOOOOOOOOO
0. 00.000.09.00
....-...........

.000

 

000
0000.

00
00000000....OOOOO

00.

 

00.000000000000000000
00000.00.
;
000:0..0000;;00§0000 0;;0000000000000000§.: 000
322.3222!!! 22 2? . . 22222222322322! 2. 2..
0 0
.000.

x 00 0000.
.390000000.
000.

Q

o
OO§300::‘:O:

000.0090
.0
00000000000
00000.00. 0
0..

.0000
090.69
0000‘.

0000
.0
00000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Product Number

v fivdfiime Packaging! manufactquAerving: cm3/servingi 77
.Volume Packaging! Standard Use: cm3/use
gPackaging Weight! manufacturer serving: g/serving
gPackaging Weight! Standard Use: g/use

Figure 5.11 Cookie Comparative Data

65

prod

Cop
\‘er
his
Wt

011

CRACKERS:

The cracker product group consisted of 5 different product/package systems. The

product group was composed of saltines, butter-type crackers (Ritz), and oyster crackers.

Table 5.16 Cracker Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number packaging/ packaging! packaging! weight! weight! weight!
Manufacturer Standard use Product Product Manufacturer Standard use
serving Weight Weight servings
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use
30 2.936 3.445 0.1723 0.1597 2.722 3.194
31 2. 821 4. 421 0.1 768 0.1506 2. 402 3. 764
32 3.392 3.996 0.1998 0.1578 2.679 3.156
33 0.776 1.25 0.0500 0.0479 0.743 1.198
34 0.207 0.344 0.0138 0.0150 0.225 0.374

 

Product 34 used the least packaging in the product group. This packaging system
consisted of a single plastic LDPE bag. This bag was sealed on the top, bottom and a fin
vertical back seal. Products 31 used the most packaging material in the product group
based on the packaging weight per standard use comparison. The package for this product
consisted of a paperboard box and 3 plastic cracker bags. Each internal bag was sealed

on 3 sides, the top, bottom and a vertical fin seal.

66

4.5 ,

 

3.5-..___ _ _

0.5- ._2

 

30

   

          
          

gxzzzmzzrm
:::....:.‘.:.i0000000.00.04
0000 000 0

00000 0000 0000000
:4OOQOXOOOOxQO40...
000.09....‘9900000090

:0
000......

3000

O 00.:
0.060.000.0000.

0.00000000000000
0000.

£OOOOOOOOQ.

0000.90.00.00Q0009’0000
0‘0...

00.0000000000900000000

X

000.00009::
00.90.00. .0000.

  

:0

0000000000000000.000000000000000000.000000000000000000000
00
0000

O
0:. OOOOOOOO§OOO
OOOOOQOOOOOQOOOOOOQOO
000.000 00000000

0

9' 00000 x
Ein‘wrs.
90:00.3:2
0.0060000.000900000000090000000

Jaiiizm“:

O

000.
000000

 
      
   
  

     
 
   
 
      
      
    
  

 

  

000000.000.
.000000.000

0900000::
OOOQOOOOO§OOOOOOOO00

9:0 0
COO”.

 

0.0.0.0...

  

      

  
       

OOOOOOOQOOOOQOOO

0000000000000...
000.000.930.00...
0.000.000.0000.

000.000.00.00. .OC‘O

OOOOOOQCOOOOOOOOOOOOQ000.0000I00

00.000.000.000
0000000000000

0
0

23

OOOQQOOOOO

   

0
99.00.0000.

90.090009...

0'
99......OOOOO

0.0000000000000000000
0 00.000.000.0000000
000.000.00.00. 0
0000.000;0

   

00.00?

 

0
0
0

' 323313323323331’

.9
?

g.
0
.9
O.
00
00
O.
.0
O.
90
00
O.

 

 

 

3 l 32
Product number

FD VoluTne ofpackagfii g/mafifacfur—egcrvin g fem/Serving

I Volume of packaging/standard use: cm3/usas
g Packaging weight/manufacturer serving: g/serving
a Packaging weight/standard use: gjuses

 

Figure 5.12 Cracker Comparative Data

67

 

>—.‘
1

pH

(ex

3’

DINNERS:

This product category consisted of 9 different product/package types. This
product category included refrigerated, shelf-stable and frozen dinners. The EPS
(expanded polystyrene) foam trays found in some packaging systems in this group were

measured without being compacted.

Table 5.17 Dinner Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight! Weight/ Weight/
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use
185 110.210 32.025 0.437 0.103 25.913 7.530
186 8.717 2.663 0.041 0.039 8.456 2.583
187 10.033 3.054 0.100 0.080 8.060 2.453
188 9.254 3.476 0.129 0.113 8.127 3.053
189 7 .099 2.673 0.099 0.091 6.508 2.451
190 9.991 2.978 0.097 0.084 8.628 2.517
191 69. 41 7 20. 844 0.194 0.184 65. 970 19. 809
192 54.379 19.321 0.184 0.159 46.860 16.650
193 7.986 4.626 0.037 0.129 28.050 16.250

 

Product 189 used the least packaging material in this product group based on

packaging weight per standard use data. This packaging system consisted of a

paperboard carton and a plastic/foil/paper laminate pouch. This product was a shelf-

stable dinner. Product 191 used the most packaging material in this product group.

Product 191 was selected for the market basket comparison because of this system having

the largest packaging weight per standard use comparison value. Product 191 consisted

of a paperboard outer box; a PET plastic plate and a plastic film cover over the plate.

68

80

70

60

50

40

it)

70

 

80 . . ,

70H . . , ,

60.- , , ,, - ,

SO; - , 2 , s DH

40*; -w- -, .2 -- --_.S___-2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

187 188

Product Number
dVolume Packaging/ manufacturersewing:cm3/serving
.Volume Packaging/ Standard Use: cm3/use

n Packaging Weight/ manufacturer serving: g/servin g
8 Packaging Weight! Standard Use: g/use

Figure 5.13 Dinner Comparative Data

69

ant.

pur

dal;

DISH SOAP:

This category consisted of 2 different product types, hand dish soap, and

automatic dish soap. The category was split into these two sub-categories for comparison

purposes, since hand soaps cannot be used in automatic dishwashers. The comparative

data does not include manufacturer’s use size comparisons because such information was

not provided on the package. The standard use comparisons were based upon a one wash

basis, which was determined to be 15 ml for hand soaps and 56 g for automatic dish

soaps. These were based upon normal use levels determined in the ad hoc study done for

 

 

this report.
Table 5.18 Dish Soap Comparative Data
Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight/ Weight! Weight/
Manufacturer Standard Use ml product ml product Manufacturer Stande Use
serving serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/ml g/ml g/serving g/use
Hand
176 * 0.208 0.034 0.057 * 0.355
1 77 * 0. 25 7 0. 042 0. 069 * 0. 430
178 * 0.219 0.035 0.047 * 0.290
179 * 0.262 0.042 0.056 * 0.344
Automatic cm3/g g/g
180 * 3.423 0.061 0.057 3.204
181 * 2.792 0.050 0.052 2.889
Hand Dish Soap:

Product 178 used the least packaging material in this product group. Product 178

consisted of a 42 fl.oz. HDPE bottle and a recloseable cap. Product 177 used the most

packaging material in this product group. This product consisted of a 14.7 fl.oz. PET

bottle with a recloseable cap.

70

.lUlUl

Automatic Dish Soap:

Product 181 used the least packaging material in this product group. This
package consisted of an HDPE plastic bottle with a flip-top closure. Product 180 used
the most packaging in this product group. This package consisted of a paperboard box

with a plastic/foil laminate outer label covering the entire box.

71

\

U 1

0]

0.50

0.45 . ,

in» .? .. .

”an. . .m ”mu av. .

3 kn» .. .3?
may.

a.
. .
“ma. a.

¢

: a... as . iii.
3an . sum...” 2% n“.

.
.

. .

s t
.2

:22

“MR“.

 

040
035
030
025
0.20
015
010
005
000

Product Number

.Volume Packaging/ Standard Use: cm3/use

g/use

aPackaging Weight/ Standard Use

Figure 5.14 Hand Dish Soap Comparative Data

72

o... . ... .
2 .....:. ’ "
. ....

.....

.2
..
..
..
z:
::
::

xvi“ ~
..:,:x

"a

xgzx

« u.“.

2':::::::
o...X.....~

';:.:..:...;:.
.

.33

‘2 3

000:3:-
.

..u. »
“nnfik

.:.: .......
.... .......
.,::
......

2:::X:2X:"
.
.

ON ”.1333”...
‘3:2::3:X:32€‘ ‘tt

..’:2....

. .. ' .
.‘u

1%

00:02

: :'~

m33:23..
... ..
u
::

3::zzi:

.
a .
$5 °
522:: 3‘

'gzr43‘
.
. .

-§E~r§..
.u{ a
. .
~ fi..
”4

.o

.tht
..

::;~z.....
‘i 3“
...

W,
: war:

::.: x ..
...

..

 

Product Number

.Volume Packaging/ Standard Use: cm3/use

.Packaging Weight/ Standard Use: g/use

Figure 5.15 Automatic Dish Soap Product Category
73

PM
Mr

I“ ~ h—d H F” H

DRINK MIX:

The drink mix product category consisted of 5 product/package systems. The
standard use comparison was based upon 240 ml of prepared drink for each product in
the category. This method was used instead of calories since a majority of the drink

mixes had little or no caloric value.

Table 5.19 Drink Mix Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight/ Weight/ Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use
117 1.073 1.129 0.019 0.043 2.511 2.641
118 1.778 1.789 0.104 0.115 1.976 1.988
119 0.742 0.733 0.556 0.533 0.711 0.702
120 1.134 1.219 1.002 0.884 1.000 1.076
121 1.651 1.674 0.097 0.186 3.153 3.198
259 0.209 0.220 0.361 0.385 0.223 0.234

 

Product 259 used the least packaging material in the product group. The package
for this product consisted of a single paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 121 used
the most packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of a
paperboard tube with a metal top and bottom, the top of which is removable. A plastic

HDPE lid and a paper label were also components of this packaging system.

74

3L

Flgu

3.5.5----, , . .

 

3 3"
O

x.-
Oi. O
OOO§OOOXO 00.09.00.009...

0. 00.0...

vw .v v
‘0900 09.6600

9 0000009009... v

zOOOOOQOQODOOOOOO.

O. 0.090.000.0000 O
.0

0.. 90000000000 00000.00900000000009.0006
v
0

OOOO‘OOOOOO‘OO‘OO

.vvv
o
O
O

 

.vvv
O...
O. 0
O.

9"

V0.
000
090
~ 0
090

3:3
00

V'vivvvvvv vvv
00: 0‘90.
0 0009.. o
O O QOOO¢OOOOOOOO
oooooooooeoooooooo 0000

O

O
0.000

QOOOOOoz
oooovoocoovoo
.- .

00:0 9;.

3,:
0.000.000.00‘. O

0
.9
0
'13'3
00:90
"xi:
0.
O. 4

."'3333

.§§:.

:9 000‘:
cc oooooooo

.mm
°::

09 020;
Q. .2 .
O O ‘00...
V‘Uovv
900099.

0090000000...

:3
1::
3';

l
06.60.90. .:2

.4000... no

 

 

 

 

 

118 119 120 121 117

Product Number

voTume Packaging—manufacturer serving: cm3_/serving__
. Volume Packaging/ Standard Use: cm3/use

Packaging Weight/ manufacturer serving: g/serving
Packaging Weight/ Standard Use: g/use

Figure 5.16 Drink Mix Comparative Data

75

Coiovvw-
06000-0097...
o-onoo-o o

'0

g.

u
o

 

g0;

M

fem

N
PI U-J

Mm

use I
Chm

Stan.

EGGS:

 

The egg product category consisted of 4 product/package systems. The expanded

polystyrene (EPS) cartons found in this category were analyzed in a non-compacted

 

form.
Table 5.20 Egg Comparative Data
Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging! Packaging/ Packaging! Weight! Weight! Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use
171 18.118 22.871 0.320 0.023 1.304 1.646
1 72 9. 986 12. 423 0.1 74 0. 070 4. 042 5. 028
174 7.927 10.898 0.153 0.059 3.060 4.206
258 12.921 17.901 0.251 0.027 1.384 1.918

 

Product 171 used the least packaging material on a packaging weight per standard
use basis. The package for 171 consisted of an expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam
container with 12 eggs. Product 172 used the most material on a packaging weight per

standard use basis. Product 172 consisted of a pulpboard carton for 12 eggs.

76

25.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 0 0 r i 777 ,
5 —. —* -1 ~ ,

0

.

o

o

O

o

a

o

I

a

i

v

o

a

o

o

- . o
D. .0. O V
.0 oo o
IOO'OO... C
no... o o
Noocoooo o
Doooooe - a
5.0.0.... .
90.0. o
\ D... .5 0
no. 0 o a
ICC. O O
l... V
.06... O 0

[3 volume Packaging/ manuT‘acturei: serving: cm3/servin g
.Volume Packaging! Standard Use: cm3/use

a Packaging Weight! manufacturer serving: g/serving

5 Packaging Weight! Standard Use: g/use

igure 5.17 Egg Comparative Data

77

I7”
211

gm

FRUIT:

 

This product category consisted of 6 product/packaging systems. Included in this
group were canned, bottled and fresh fruit. The manufacturer serving size and calorie
information for fresh fruits was taken from the Food and Drug Administration fruit and
produce information available in the grocery stores. The product group consisted of

peaches, oranges and papaya.

Table 5.21 Fruit Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging! Packaging! Packaging! Weight! Weight! Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving gluse
214 .530 .702 0.003 0.004 0.662 0.877
215 18.223 26.277 0.146 0.457 56. 997 82.185
216 4.664 7.685 0.037 0.132 16.537 27.248
217 5.387 4.898 0.039 0.133 18.560 16.877
218 19.878 24.049 0.170 0.257 30.000 36.296
221 1.045 1.519 0.007 0.005 0.830 1.207

 

Product 214 used the least packaging material in this product group. This
package consisted of a plastic mesh bag and an adhesive paper/plastic laminate label.
Product 215 used the most packaging material for the fruit product group. This package

consisted of a clear glass jar with a metal lug cap, and an adhesive plastic label.

78

20 ,,

214

 
  

o
O
O
.

    

o
O.
‘

AAA...‘-‘A£AAA§

 

0.9.0.00
099.94.909.00

   

O.

0.0000000000‘O‘O'OOQOOOOO
cOQoooooooooooveooonb
on 90‘

QQOOOOOOOO
.4...A...a.o

 

O
AAOAAAA“

960 o
:...::z
90.090099909000000:
.g.
t

22:21

 

o ebaootooooo

9900009.
0090060...
6090.00.00.

O
AAAQ‘AAAAA‘O‘
oooooao oaooqooooo 00

0“”.OwOOOOOOCQQ...
009
o

00 00.000000000006900000069090000

o
..
a
0
O
o-
O
O
O
.1
O
o

00.9.00.
00.0.00...
'2
,o

.0
..§:2
O
:O:OOOOOOO
0“ '0. O.

‘Y

.900 00
‘8‘...
6;.
O .9.
09......

...

.00.. .0.

9

;:§
'xx: '
uni?i

333’
a;

z .
:.. §§;§§
x2: 09‘
.:~::: '
*‘ztziii‘
0: O
32.3.22......

3:?
33::
...........
.9
.0
:0
mi

 

 

215 216 217 218

Product Number

I] Volume Paatagin‘g/vmanufaaurer serving: cm3/servin g
.Volume Packaging! Standard Use: cm3/use

g Packaging Weight! manufacturer serving: glservin g
3 Packaging Weight! Standard Use: g/use

Figure 5.18 Fruit Comparative Data

79

The chewing gum product category consisted of 5 product/package systems. The
standard use comparisons were not reported for this category due to gum not being used
for nutritional value.

Table 5.22 Gum Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number packaging! packaging! packaging/ weight! weight! weight!
Manufacturer Standard use Product Product Manufacturer Standard use
serving weight weight servings
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g!use
45 0.359 * 0.0789 0.0975 0.444 *
46 0.481 * 0.0921 0.0921 0.520 *
47 0.571 * 0.2096 0.2096 0.591 *
48 0.547 * 0.1698 0.1698 0.548 *
134 1.07 * 0.3852 0.3852 0. 957 *

 

Product number 45 used the least packaging. This package consisted of 4
individual plastic/foil laminate packs, 20 waxed paper gum wrappers and a plastic over-
wrap. The most packaging was product 134. This packaging type was composed of a
paperboard sleeve, a plastic blister package with 12 blisters, and a foil backing over the

blisters.

80

1.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

0.8 - . _ _ _ _ , . _ _ , ,, , , z ,
0.6 ,- , , , , ., , . , , , ,_,
0.4 a. 2 , - ,.2___ z z -2 .2
0.2“- __
0,______
47
Productnumber

Cl Volume of packaging/manufacturers serving: cm3/serving

a Packaging weight/manufacturer serving: g/serving

Figure 5.19 Gum Comparative Data

81

 

 

 

 

 

 

HAND SOAP:

This product group consisted of 9 product/package systems including bar soaps
and liquid soaps. Manufacturer use amounts were not used as comparisons in this group
because the manufacturers did not provide such information. The standard use amount
was based upon actual hand washing analysis. The analysis consisted of a series of hand
washings, from which the average soap per use was calculated for each product type
(liquid or bar). This analysis determined that bar soap was used at 2.1 g/washing, and

liquid soap was used at 5 ml/washing.

Table 5.23 Hand Soap Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging! Standard Packaging/Product Weight/Product Weight/Standard
Use Weight Weight Use
cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/use
8 0.499 0.100 0.172 0.859
9 0.217 0.103 0.077 0.162
10 0.041 0.019 0.021 0.043
11 0.052 0.025 0.023 0.049
12 0.185 0.088 0.066 0.138
13 1.046 0.209 0.234 1.170
14 0.243 0.116 0.081 0.171
15 0.064 0.031 0.028 0.059
16 0.574 0.115 0.174 0.872

 

Product 10 used the least packaging material in this product group. This package
consisted of 3 paper/plastic laminate soap wraps and plastic over-wrap. The most
packaging material was used by product 13, which consisted of a paperboard outer

carton, a plastic (PET) bottle and a plastic pump.

82

€40 acanOOOceccseo 44004444000 0 0 0003 004000 0 0 44411414094.
00 OOOV0OO000900 090 00 0902§§W§0m 000 0 {N0 vmonmmz0oo0eocv0.
09090090000000.090000 000 00000002009000 0' 0 0 000000000 0 0 0. 00040800000.

OOO‘.‘OOOOOO‘Q.OOOQOO O...

O
.000... 00.0000000900000 .
00.000009000000000

9.69..
000060000 00000000000000000 0000000 .
b.6006 660.00.00.0000000 .

9.0009000009000000 9 0900009000 0000

000000009§0§2969000 ON

‘0' 80 0009000000000 00090000 0

.oooeooooosoooo 00000090000900000000000000”
0
r

00”
00
000
.9800. 00000000000000.0000000 O 900
.voooe o ‘9‘090000000000$0000000 000 00000900000900.0000. o.
is..- tsusrttouvtbstbtbsuvvtp . by. ’ttvsvttv vb>u i>pp .

 

009000000-
00000. n
00"...
0 .
0.000000000090000.

 

0000000000009 0000.
00.090.09.00 90 .0000

00000 00000 00000000..

 

1.40 _
1.20 .
1.00 .
0.80 -
0.60 .
0.40 .

cm3/use

g/use

0

Product Number
83

.Volume Packaging! Standard Use
gPackaging Weight! Standard Use

Figure 5.20 Hand Soap Comparative Data

ICE CREAM:

This product category consisted of 5 product/package systems. The products
selected for this category were all regular ice cream. Other ice cream products, such as
fat free, use similar package systems.

Table 5.24 Ice Cream Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight/ Weight/ Weight/
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use
236 2.240 1.853 0.035 0.031 1.967 1.628
237 4.695 2.917 0.064 0.050 3.665 2.277
238 4. 662 3. 050 0. 066 0. 053 3. 748 2. 452
239 4.421 2.433 0.051 0.044 3.813 2.099
240 4.248 1.562 0.040 0.034 3.641 1.339

 

Product 240 used the least packaging in this product group on a packaging weight
per standard use basis. This package consisted of a paperboard tub and a paperboard lid.
Product 238 used the most packaging in the analysis of this product group. Product 238

consisted of a laminated paperboard carton and a plastic lid.

84

5.0 .

4.5

4.0 -

3.5 .,

3.0+,

 

1.53,

1.0 -2

0.5 .Ml

 

0.0 - ,_

236

0.00 .060 09.

1:3"

0

O O
00

0
O
O
0
0
Q
0
0
00
0

000...... 00
OOOOOOO‘OOO‘OOOOOOQ

2

00000
00.0.00

0
000.0. 000000...

000000

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

  

 

      

 

   
    

 

        

 

 

0009
.0.
DO.
00‘
000
00.
000
000
:0 000
3.23“:
:0 0000910
00 0000000
:: 0000000
9690.00
00 0000000
00 0000000
:z.., ‘::::::
00 0 :000000
30.010 000.000
00: 0 0000000
020 0: 0000000
0 00’ 00.000
.0 Q 0 000.00
9 99....
0O. 00
z 00 00
00

O

0990:...

m" 3'

0‘0

000

3.22::
00:

0.0000090

9.00900...

00000000000000000

:0.0
4::
.,3:

 

O...
2:3
00099

30:99.0000
.:::000000
:1

0000 0009
O
000000000000000000000

960.60.

000

2232

0 :3
0 6

00‘

0
0

90 0.
0
00:00
0 0
0 0

0

0

0 0

O Q
:0 0
O
.00 0
000

$33

OOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOQOOOCOOO 0.00

0.0.0....

 

 

 

 

 

237 238 239 240

Product Number

[:1 VJume Packaging/ manufacturer serving: cm3/serving
I Volume Packaging/ Standard Use: cm3/use

g Packaging Weight/ manufacturer serving: g/servin g
fiPackaging Weight/ Standard Use: g/use

Figure 5.21 Ice Cream Comparative Data

85

JU ICES:

The juice product category consisted of 18 product/package systems and included
frozen juice concentrates, shelf-stable juices, and refrigerated juices. The standard use
comparison for this product group was based upon 240-ml (8-oz) amount per use. The
standard use comparisons for product 90 and 97, the frozen juice concentrates, were
based upon the juices in their prepared form. The comparative data for this product

group is as follows:

Table 5.25 Juice Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight! Weight/ Weight/
Manufacturer Standard Use ml product ml product Manufacturer Standard Use
servmg servmg
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/ml g/ml g/serving g/use

80 7.387 10.691 0.045 0.186 30.846 44.640
81 9.318 17.893 0.075 0.065 8.083 15.521
82 5.748 5.998 0.025 0.119 27.398 28.589
83 14.722 14.326 0.060 0.051 12.597 12.258
84 19.774 18.898 0.079 0.039 9.814 9.380
85 8.453 8.344 0.035 0.045 10.814 10.676
86 12.712 13.693 0.057 0.044 9.696 10.444
88 38. 808 38. 604 0.161 0. 332 80. 096 79. 680
89 64.996 72.556 0.302 0.093 20.080 22.415
90 3.647 3.700 0.062 0.078 4.738 4.806
91 10.783 10.858 0.045 0.037 8.764 8.825
92 4.398 4.370 0.018 0.018 4.362 4.334
93 10.015 10.015 0.042 0.040 9.538 9.538
94 13.612 13.612 0.057 0.051 12.260 12.260
96 11.235 11.235 0.048 0.044 10.398 10.563
97 3.079 4.213 0.050 0.071 4.358 4.420
98 26.895 26.895 0.106 0.091 23.013 21.802
99 31.275 30.024 0.125 0.099 24.672 23.684

 

Product 92 used the least packaging material in the product group on a packaging
weight per standard use basis. This product was refrigerated orange juice. The

packaging for this product consisted of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) gallon jug.

86

Product 88 used the most packaging material in this product group. The package for

product 88 consisted of a clear glass bottle with a recloseable metal cap.

87

80

70 .-

60.. ,

40*_

   

'00....‘000000
00000000000000

20 k-

 

0
00000000000000

    
    
    
   

22312222222222222212222

 

l

9
Q
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
6
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
' 0
0
0
0
' '
' O
i
0
O
O
O
O
0
Q
0
0
..
O
E:
O
§<
g;
0
O
9
6
0
0

 

 

 
     

'33380533353' 353533300533b

0000000

   

000‘

    
 

l

     
      
    

...........

.QOOOOOOOOOOOO.

   
  
  

000000000000000000000000000000

.v............

00000000000000000000000

 
   
 

.0

 

     

v00-0v000-n00'

00000000000000000

      
      

000000000v
000.0000.-

12:1!!!

  

.......y. .
OOOOOOOOOOO..O
.0000.

00000000
00

0 00000000
0000000000

'0
O.
0.
D.
00
00

X

I
. ’112221322::
2222!!!
.V‘OO'VQQQQO
0.....OOOOQ

  

u'zuuuuuuuuuuuuu

.....
0

33

    

v
00

 

00000000000000000000090000000000v

.
o$33$33553$33335

 

00000000

...

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

Product Number

'gvmifie Paclaging/manufactujer servingfcm3/serving‘
I Volume Packaging] Standard Use: cm3/use
a Packaging Weight! manufacturer serving: g/serving
E Packaging Weight/ Standard Use: g/use

Figure 5.22 Juice Comparative Data

88

..v.
0000

O

 

9900x0130000000000 0:000000000000000000000
0000 0 000000000 00.00.00.000900000000

O

OVOOQOQCxOOQOQO
000000 000:.

 

00000000500000

’0

000000000000

 

LAUNDRY DETERGENT:

This product category consisted of 7 product/package systems. The comparisons
were based upon manufacturer’s uses per container and standard uses based upon the
amount of product used per wash. The standard use amount for powdered detergent was
62 g per use, and for liquid detergent was 121 ml per use. These values were based upon

normal use amounts found during the ad hoc study done for this report.

Table 5.26 Laundry Detergent Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight/ Weight] Weight/
Manufacturer Standard use ml product ml product Manufacturer Standard use
uses uses
cm3/uses cm3/ use cm3/ml g/ml g/uses g/ use
110 12.271 11.958 0.099 0.156 19.323 18.83
111 6.630 6.502 0.054 0.067 8.269 8.11
1 12 8.820 8.702 0.072 0.045 5.519 5.445
cm3/g g/g
1 13 5.444 5.427 0.088 0.076 4.726 4.711
114 8.075 7.120 0.115 0.102 7.175 6.326
115 0.406 0.401 0.006 0.007 0.432 0.427
116 8.209 7.857 0.127 0.088 5.714 5.469

 

Product 115 used the least packaging material for this product group. This

package consisted of an LDPE plastic sealed bag. The package was sealed on the top,

bottom and vertically on the back with a fin seal. Product 110 used the most packaging

material in the product group. This package consisted of an HDPE pigmented plastic

bottle and a plastic screw cap.

89

LAUNDRY DETERGENT:

The packaging weight measurements for products 110,111,112 in the laundry
detergent group were found to be incorrect. The product assignments of least and most
packaging material did not change due to these errors. The errors can most likely be

attributed to incorrect scale calibrations.

Table 1: Laundry Detergent Comparative Data

 

 

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight/ Weight/ Weight/
Manufacturer Standard use ml product m1 product Manufacturer Standard use
uses uses
cm3/uses cm3/ use cm3/ml g/ml g/uses g/ use
110 12.271 11.958 0.099 0.156 19.323 18.83
1 1 1 6.630 6.502 0.054 0.067 8.269 8.11
112 8.820 8.702 0.072 0.045 5.519 5.445
cm3/g g/g
1 13 5.444 5.427 0.088 0.076 4.726 4.711
114 8.075 7.120 0.115 0.102 7.175 6.326
115 0.406 0.401 0.006 0.007 0.432 0.427
116 8.209 7.857 0.127 0.088 5.714 5.469
Table 2: Corrected Laundry Detergent Comparative Data
Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight/ Weight/ Weight/
Manufacturer Standard use ml product m1 product Manufacturer Standard use
uses uses
cm3/uses cm3/ use cm3/ml g/ml g/uses g/ use
110 12.271 11.958 0.099 0.073 9.008 8. 778
111 6.630 6.502 0.054 0.051 6.328 6.207
112 8.820 8.702 0.072 0.034 4.135 4.080
cm3/ g g/g
1 13 5.444 5.427 0.088 0.076 4.726 4.711
114 8.075 7.120 0.115 0.102 7.175 6.326
115 0.406 0.401 0.006 0.007 0.432 0.427
116 8.209 7.857 0.127 0.088 5.714 5.469

 

89a

 

OOOOO
$0.000.
0000
990000900. 00009

9..

t:

O...‘

Q .QOOOO‘OQOOOOOOOO
ooo9ooovooo¢oooquooo.y
vovvvvovvvvvv
ooooooovooo o
9“QCOOOOQCO

6’36 A ‘6'00665860 000
9::tzozoooooocoo O:

'?a

vooaovoaoovoooop.oco

a 'tbéibééo
'néa?
aggrai

O...

X:

fig

0
.5.»
.???¥?

:mr‘ii

co
00......QC‘OO‘OOOOOO..9...0.99.0.0

0.0

66
o
o
o
.oZ

O
O
o

3%

O

O

Q
'vvvvv

i

i

'u
ifi
.§
3:

fi'

0

6000709000960
..v.... vvv
60090001900

:t

00900.90
090.06...

0000...
«00990.00

 

 

.006 8
090000

 

 

 

 

 

   
   

112 113 115 116

Product Number

[3 VbhtmeVPackaging/manufactureruses: 'cni3/use
.Volume Packaging/ Standard uses: cm3/use
g Packaging Weight/ manufacturer uses: g/use

Packaging Weight! Standard uses: g/use

Figure 5.23 Laundry Detergent Comparative Data

9%)

LUNCH MEAT:
The lunch meat product group consisted of 4 product/package systems. The lunch

meat product selected was ham.

Table 5.27 Lunch Meat Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight/ Weight/ Weight/
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard. Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm 3/use cm3/g g/ g g/serving g/use
157 0.373 0.881 0.013 0.015 0.438 1.036
158 6.884 10.960 0.115 0.110 6.570 10.461
159 1.403 2.658 0.027 0.044 2.263 4.285
160 0.637 2.081 0.026 0.023 0.564 1.842

 

Product 157 used the least packaging material for this product group. This
package consisted of a plastic LDPE sealed pouch. Product 158 used the most packaging
in the product group. The package consisted of a paperboard outer carton and a plastic

pouch that was sealed on 4 sides.

91

12.

10

....

a"
.
.z

m.”

an”

«n

 

 

 

o.. ‘00:

x.. ..

unuuuuunuuuuuuuu

 

Product Number

Cl Volume Packaging/manufacturer serving: cm3/serving

.Volume Packaging/ Standard Use: cm3/use

fiPackaging Weight/ manufacturer serving: g/serving

fiPackaging Weight/ Standard Use: g/use

Figure 5.24 Lunch Meat Comparative Data

92

MARGARINE:

The margarine product group consisted of 5 product/package systems. The
product group consisted of margarine sticks, margarine tubs and squeezable margarine.
The standard use comparison was not used because the category included no calorie fat-

free margarine.

Table 5.28 Margarine Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight/ Weight/ Weight/
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use
167 1.735 * 0.119 0.097 1.409 *
168 0.794 * 0.055 0.050 0.721 *
169 1. 720 * 0.115 0.121 1.803 *
170 0.955 * 0.063 0.043 0.652 *
257 0.784 * 0.055 0.045 0.650 *

 

Product 257 used the least packaging material in the product group. This package
consisted of a paperboard carton with 4 paper margarine wraps. Product 169 used the
most packaging material in the product group. This package consisted of a squeezable

HDPE plastic bottle, a plastic flip top closure and a foil seal.

93

2.007 , . . , , , , 7 7

1.80-77,,,.7,,,,,, .7.7.,,.—,,77.777 7 7, ,

1.6077 7,,,, . 7 7,,,,,,,,,,,,,

l.40;,7 ’—_.7 , 7 7 7,,7,7,7,, ,,7

l.20.7l 7..7,,,,,7 ,77 7,7777, 7

1.00-7. ,, ,,, , ,,,7,7,,7,7,7

 

 

0.80 .,

 

 

0.60 7 ,

0-40 .7, . . . ,7 ,

 

 

0.20 77

 

 

 

 

 

0.00 ,7 ,.

   

Product Number

E] leume Packangg/ manufacgrer servinigziem3/servingi r 77
fiPackaging Weight! manufacturer serving: g/serving

Figure 5.25 Margarine Comparative Data

94

MEAL.

The meat category consisted of 4 product/package systems. The product selected
for analysis in this study was ground beef. The calorie and serving size information for
the manufacturer and standard use comparisons were taken from information provided in
grocery stores by the Food Marketing Institute. The expanded polystyrene trays found in

this product group were analyzed without being compacted.

Table 5.29 Meat Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight/ Weight/ Weight/
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use
198 27.495 13.514 0.227 0.027 3.325 1.634
199 33. 777 16. 039 0.270 0. 034 4.273 2. 029
200 13.342 3.954 0.094 0.009 1.234 0.366
201 15.767 5.139 0.123 0.013 1.626 0.530

 

Product 200 used the least packaging material in this product group. This
package consisted of an expanded polystyrene (EPS) tray and plastic wrap. Product 199
used the most packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of an
EPS tray, and plastic outer sealing layers. This package also had a paper backing

material inside the package.

95

35.. . ._ .. ._.__-_

 

30.77,,777777,. ,7, ,,,,,7,77 7

 

25,, 77,777,, 77 7 ,, ,,,,,77,77.

2077 ,_77, 7., 7,777,777777777777777,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

200 201

Product Number

TTTTT D‘Volume Packaging/ manufacturer serving: cm3/serving W
I Volume Packaging/ Standard Use: cm3/use
g Packaging Weight! manufacturer serving: g/serving

3 Packaging Weight/ Standard Use: g/use

L _777_.______ 7____._ ,7_7_7___’77_. _.__77_

Figure 5.26 Meat Comparative Data

96

MILK:
This product group consisted of 9 product/package systems. The product group

consisted of skim and low fat milks.

Table 5.30 Milk Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging! Weight! Weight! Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Use ml product ml product Manufacturer Standard Use
servmg servmg
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/ml g/ml g/serving g/use
161 5.269 6.586 0.022 0.018 4.404 5.505
162 4.391 5.553 0.019 0.018 4.217 5.334
163 10.190 12.567 0.042 0.033 7.918 9.765
164 11.072 13.883 0.046 0.035 8.415 10.552
165 9.434 11.792 0.039 0.062 14.910 18.638
166 12.502 10.418 0.052 0.064 15.405 12.838
251 11.764 13.167 0.049 0.056 13.380 14.976
252 21.482 16.617 0. 090 0. 095 22. 768 1 7. 612
260 1.621 1.366 0.007 0.007 1.550 1.307

 

Product 260 was found to use the least packaging material in this product group.
This package consisted of an LDPE plastic pouch. Product 252 was found to use the
most packaging material in the group on a packaging weight per manufacturer serving
basis. This basis was used for this category because the milk caloric values varied
between skim and low fat milk products. The package for this product consisted of 6
individual serving pigmented HDPE bottles, 6 plastic shrink labels, and plastic outer

Shrink-wrap.

97

 

        

 

mm”"unmwuauuuuuanuw"uuuu"....
......................... ...

 

 

:1 X.
:30...»
..o¢......

 

 

  

 

 

.
“.«uunuunuuauuu

mwwm..§i.

     

 

 

  

 

  

 

10

 

260

252

          
     

 

 

I65

164

163

162

Product Number

DVolume Packaging! manufacturer serving: cm3/serving

.Volume Packaging! Stande Use: cm3/use
n Packaging Weight! manufacturer serving: g/serving
.Packaging Weight! Standard Use: g/use

Figure 5.27 Milk Comparative Data

98

EAPER TOWEL:

The paper towel product group consisted of 3 product/package systems. The

standard use comparison was based upon one 11 inch x11 inch (27.9 cm x 27.9 cm) paper

towel per use.

Table 5.31 Paper Towel Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
N umber Packaging! Packaging! Packaging! Weight! Weight! Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Use one sheet, cm2 one sheet, cm2 Manufacturer Standard Use
use use
cm3/ use cm3/use cm3/cm2 g/cm2 g/use g/use
l 82 0.071 0.084 0.017 0.016 0.065 0.077
1 83 0.037 0.081 0.015 0.015 0.035 0.07 7
__184 0.162 0.193 0.106 0.099 0.151 0.180

 

Product 183 used the least packaging material in this product group. The
Packaging for this product consisted of an outer LDPE plastic wrap. This product
consisted of one roll of paper towels. Product 184 used the most packaging materials in
this product group. The packaging for this product consisted of 8 individual LDPE

Plastic wraps, and an outer plastic wrap around all 8 rolls.

99

0.250 , ,

0.200. 7 ,, 7,77 7

0.150, ,, ,,,

O.l00., 7,,7 , ,, 7

0.050

 

 

 

Product Number

7 7 7 7 7 r TDCVoluime Packaging! mianufactureriuses: cm3/uses if
.Volume Packaging! Standard Uses: cm3/use
fiPackaging Weight! manufacturer uses: g/use

gPackaging Weight! Standard Use: g/use

5.28 Paper Towel Comparative Data

100

.. ...
max: 3 :
.

”um:

 

.:~'
...
a.

.....
oi?

.
3
3

.i
i:

PASTA:
The pasta category consisted of 9 product/packaging systems. The expanded
polystyrene (EPS) tray found in this product group was analyzed without being

compacted. The comparative data for the group is as follows:

Table 5.32 Pasta Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
N umber Packaging! Packaging! Packaging! Weight! Weight! Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Weight Manufacturer Standard Use

serving Weight Serving

cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use
50 7.408 3.605 0.1328 0.1071 5.975 2.908
5 1 9.501 4.630 0.1684 0.0176 0.993 0.484
52 4.273 2.006 0.0752 0.0618 3.511 1.684
53 0.490 0.228 0.0086 0.0077 0.440 0.205
54 6.316 2. 606 0.0705 0.0936 8. 380 3. 458
55 3.818 1.727 0.0691 0.0777 4.293 1.942
56 0.582 0.27 8 0.0102 0.0054 0.305 0. 146
5 7 62.637 30.096 1.056 0.0651 3.863 1.856
5 8 1.548 0.720 0.027 0.0318 1.827 0.849

 

 

Product 56 used the least packaging for this product group. The package for this
Product consisted of a plastic pillow pouch with a vertical fin seal. Product 56 was
SEIected for the market basket analysis because of smallest packaging weight per standard
use comparison value. Product 54 used the most packaging material in this product
grOUp on a packaging weight per standard use basis. The package for this product

c0nsisted of a plastic tray and a plastic film cover.

101

70

 

60. , 7, ,7, ,77 , 7 ,7

40.,,,7,,7777,,,7,77,7,7,7,,,, ,7,7

 

 

 

Product number

1] Volume Packaging! manufacturer serving: cm3/serving
.Volume Packaging! Standard Use: cm3/use
gPackaging Weight! Manufacturer Serving: g/serving
mPackaging Weight! Standard Use: gluse

Figure 5.29 Pasta Comparative Data

102

w

The pet food product category consisted of 9 product/package systems. The pet

food product selected for analysis in this study was cat food. Included in this category

were moist and dry eat foods. The manufacturer serving comparisons were not used in

this product category because the majority of the products did not indicate a serving size.

The standard use comparison was based upon normal feeding amounts for one cat per

day. The ad hoc study determined that the basis for the standard use comparison was

5 .502 (155g) for moist food and 2.102(61.6g) for dry.

Table 5.33 Pet Food Comparative Data

 

Product
N umber

59
6O
61
62
63
64
65
66
67

 

Volume
Packaging!
Manufacturer

serving

cm3/servings

4:

*
a:
4:
*
*
4:
'1:
*

Volume

Packaging!
Standard Use

cm3/uses

6.657
5.185
5. 239
10.213
1.550
7.586
15.366
4.278
10.357

Volume
Packaging!

Product
Weight
cm3/g

0.108

0.033
0. 034
0.166
0.025
0.049
0.099
0.069
0.168

Packaging

Weight!
Product
Weight

g/g
0.097

0.146
0. 227
0.141
0.023
0.1 14
0.093
0.022
0.132

Packaging
Weight!
Manufacturer
serving
g/servings

*a-*******

Packaging
Weight!
Standard Use

g/uses

5.969
22.678
35. 15 7

8.676

1.389
17.605
14.388

1.369

8.104

 

Product 66 used the least packaging material in this product group on a packaging

Weight per standard use basis. This product was a dry cat food packaged in a multi-wall

paper bag. Product 61 used the most packaging material on a packaging weight per

Standard use basis and, therefore, was selected for the market basket. The package for

product 61 consisted of a 2-piece steel can with a pull-top lid and a paper label.

103

40

35

30

25

20

.Volume Packaging! Standard Use: cm3/use

Figure 5.30 Pet Food Comparative Data

104

 

EPackaging Weight! Standard Use: g!use

POULTRY:

The poultry product category consisted of two product/package systems. This
product group was made up only of fresh, whole chicken. This was done to narrow the
product group because of the vast variety of prepared chicken products available, such as
breaded chicken breast and buffalo-wing style chicken pieces. The expanded polystyrene
tray in this product group was analyzed in a non-compacted form. The calorie and
serving size information for the manufacturer and standard use comparisons were taken

from information provided in grocery stores by the Food Marketing Institute.

Table 5.34 Poultry Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging! Packaging! Packaging! Weight! Weight! Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g!g g!serving g!use
202 0.348 0.246 0.004 0.003 0.309 0.219
203 11.733 8.536 0.136 0.017 1.443 1.050

 

Product 202 used the least packaging material for the product group. The package
for this product consisted of a single LDPE plastic bag. Product 203 used the most
packaging material for the product group. This package consisted of an expanded

polystyrene tray, a plastic label, and an outer plastic wrap.

105

l4 , 7

 

 

 

 

 

202 203

Product Number

DiVoluTne Packaging! manufacturer serving: cm3/serving 7
I Volume Packaging! Standard Use: cm3/use

I Packaging Weight! manufacturer serving: g!serving
fiPackaging Weight! Standard Use: g!use

Figure 5.31 Poultry Comparative Data

106

SHAMPOO:

The shampoo category consisted of 4 product/packaging systems. Standard use
comparisons for this product category were based upon the amount of shampoo used per
wash. The amount of shampoo used for the standard use basis in this study was 10

ml/use. This is based upon normal use amounts determined in the ad hoc study for this

 

report.
Table 5.35 Shampoo Comparative Data
Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging! Packaging! Packaging! Weight! Weight! Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Use ml Product m1 Product Manufacturer Standard Use
servmg servnng
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/ml g!g g!serving g!use
232 0.559 0.931 0.093 0.103 0.620 1.033
233 0.387 0.626 0.063 0.081 0.501 0.811
234 1.191 1.854 0.185 0.153 0.985 1.534
235 1.109 1. 706 0.171 0.162 1.050 1.615

 

Product 233 used the least packaging material in this product group. This
package consisted of a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottle and a plastic screw
cap. Product 235 used the most packaging material in this product group. This package
consisted of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle with plastic flip cap. Product 235
was selected for market basket analysis because of the largest packaging weight per

standard use comparison value.

107

250

200 .

150 ,

50,

 

 

 

Product Number

DVolume Packaging! manufacturer serving: cm3/serving
IVolume Packaging! Stande Use: cm3/use

n Packaging Weight! manufacturer serving: g!serving
gPackaging Weight! Standard Use: g!use

Figme 5.32 Shampoo Comparative Data

108

SOFT DRINK:
The soft drink product group consisted of 10 product/package systems. The
standard use comparisons were based upon 240 m1 (8 fl oz) per usage. The standard use

comparison was not based on calories per serving because the category included diet soft

 

drinks.
Table 5.36 Soft Drink Comparative Data
Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging! Packaging! Packaging! Weight! Weight! Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Use ml Product ml Product Manufacturer Standard Use
servmg servmg
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/ml g/ml g/serving g!use
135 16.011 10.764 0.045 0.065 23.211 15.604
136 22.329 9.045 0.038 0.050 29.917 12.118
137 51.600 52.253 0.218 0.494 117.008 118.489
138 5.257 5.291 0.022 0.027 6.419 6.461
1 39 6.794 4.457 0.019 0.043 15.860 10.405
1 40 8.020 5.347 0.022 0.046 16.697 11.131
1 41 5.527 5.202 0.022 0.028 7.158 6.736
1 42 140.212 139. 438 0.581 0. 965 232. 797 231.510
1 43 23.275 9.310 0.039 0.052 31.330 12.532
1 44 15.895 10.626 0.044 0.071 25.499 17.047

Product 138 used the least packaging material in the product group. Product 138
consisted of a 3-Liter PET bottle. Product 138 was selected for market basket analysis
because of the smallest packaging weight per standard use comparison value. Product
142 used the most packaging material in this product group. The packaging consisted of

6 clear glass bottles and a paperboard carton.

109

250,,

150 . ,

 

100

 

emu-”arm

138 139 140 141

0 .

   

Product Number

7 bVolume Packaging! manufacturer serving: cm3/serving

IVolume Packaging! Standard Use: cm3/use

n Packaging Weight! manufacturer serving: g!serving
gPackaging Weight! Standard Use: g!use

Figure 5.33 Sofi Drink Comparative Data

110

SOUP:
The soup product group consisted of 7 product/package systems. Included in this

group were condensed soups, dry soups, ready to eat soups, and frozen soups.

Table 5.37 Soup Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging! Packaging! Packaging! Weight! Weight! Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g!g g!serving g!use
204 6.519 42.406 0.444 0.402 5.903 38.395
205 1.798 1.540 0.055 0.059 1.955 1.675
206 16.118 9.430 0.329 0.251 12.320 7.208
207 13.881 12.329 0.116 0.088 10.590 9.406
208 6.840 8.259 0.056 0.129 15.856 19.144
209 10.476 7.912 0.038 0.132 36.245 27.373
210 33. 749 29.930 0.146 0.454 105.177 93.276

 

Product 205 used the least packaging material for this product group. The
package consisted of a single paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch. This product was one of
the dry soups in the product group. Product 210 used the most packaging material in the
Product group. The package consisted of a clear glass jar with a metal lug closure and a

Paper label. This product was one of the ready-to-eat soups in the product group.

111

120

100 .

80,

60,

40

20

 

 

Product Number

E] Volume Packaging! manufacturer serving: cm3/serving
IVolume Packaging! Standard Use: cm3/use

g Packaging Weight! manufacturer serving: g!serving
mPackaging Weight! Standard Use: g!use

Figure 5.35 Soup Comparative Data

112

TISSUES:

The tissue product group consisted of 6 product/packaging systems. The standard
use comparison was based upon 1 sq. ft. of tissue per use. Manufacturer uses
comparisons were based upon one tissue per use. The data comparisons for this product

group is as follows:

Table 5.38 Tissue Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging! Packaging! Packaging! Weight! Weight! Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Uses cm2 product cm2 product Manufacturer Standard Use
use use
cm3/use cm3/use cm3/cm2 g/cm2 g!use g!use
122 0.067 0.129 0.017 0.061 0.243 0.471
123 0. 904 1.821 0.116 0. 091 0. 714 1.438
124 0.496 0.954 0.107 0.090 0.418 0.804
125 0.613 1.228 0.159 0.135 0.520 1.043
126 0.516 0.983 0.186 0.154 0.425 0.811
1 27 0.208 0.393 0.030 0.034 0.230 0.435

 

Product 127 used the least packaging material in this product group. This
package consisted of 6 individual plastic tissue pack wraps, and an outer plastic wrap.
Product 127 was selected for market basket analysis because of the smallest packaging
Wei ght per standard use comparison value. Product 123 used the most packaging
material in the product group on a packaging weight per standard use basis. This package
consisted of paperboard box with a plastic wrap material around the width of the box,

With a plastic adhesive label.

113

2.0

0.8 ..7 7 7 ,

0.6.7777_.

 

 

Figure 5.35 Tissue Corn

 

‘
00
O

00-00000-00000
OOOQQQOOOOOOO

113

O
0
0
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Q
Q
0

0.
1::
00

0 0000000000

00 000000

00-0000-00000 000-0-000-00007.

3333.33"
0.000000000000000

f3:

00000000000000000000000000 000000000

000000000 00000000000 0000

3X3
0000

8'83
00

000000000000000000000000 000000000000

:QCOQQQOOOOO
000000000000

 

123

00

u
:31

$3
-0000000000000000000000000000000
'00OQQOOOOIOOOOOOOOQOOOQCOOOOG0.00

0000000000006.

00000000000
..OQOOOMOOOOOOOOOOOi‘Ov

0000000000000000

OOOOOOOOQOOOOO‘

00000000000

00000000000000.000:
00000000000000

.0
“an:

00‘

060000

0
O

33

 

 

Product Number

Cl Volume Packagin

IVolume Packagin

g! manufacturer uses: cm3/use

g! Standard Uses: cm3/use

g Packaging Weight! manufacturer uses: g!use

IPackaging Weight! Standard Use: g!use

parative Data

114

 

'1.

0000000000000000000

000000000000000000:00
0

0

000000000000000000000
00
000000000000000
0 0

.000000
000000

000000 000000
000000 090000
00000000000000
000.....‘00

000
000
000

,...

'000
000

 

TOILET TISSUE:
The toilet paper product category consisted of 3 product/package systems. The

standard use comparison was based upon 1 sq. ft. of toilet tissue per use. Manufacturer

uses comparisons were based upon on one square of toilet tissue per use.

Table 5.39 Toilet Tissue Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging! Packaging! Packaging! Weight! Weight! Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Uses cm2 product cm2 product Manufacturer Standard Use
uses uses
cm3/use cm3/use cm3/cm2 g/cm2 g!use g!use
128 0. 015 0.102 0. 061 0. 068 0. 016 0.113
129 0.004 0.030 0.109 0.098 0.004 0.027
130 0.033 0.236 0.254 0.032 0.004 0.029

 

Product 129 used the least packaging material in this product group. This product

contained 12 rolls of toilet paper. The package consisted of an outer plastic (LDPE)
wrap. Product 128 used the most packaging material in this product group. Product 128

was found to produce the most packaging on the packaging weight per standard use basis,

and, therefore, was selected for the market basket. The package for product 128

consisted of 4 toilet paper rolls wrapped with an outer plastic wrap.

115

     

0.20 7
0.15 . 7
0.10
0.05 7 7
0.00 7 7 7
129
Product Number

DVolume Packaging! manufacturer uses: cm3/use
IVolume Packaging! Standard Uses: cm3/use
IPackaging Weight! manufacturer uses: g!use

aPackaging Weight! Standard Use: g!use

Figm‘e 5.36 Toilet Tissue Comparative Data

116

TOMATO PRODUCT:

The representative product for the tomato product group was ketchup. The
product group consisted of 4 product/package systems. Glass ketchup bottles were not
included in this study because none could be found in retail outlets. The standard use
comparison was not used in this analysis since ketchup is not being used for the
nutritional value, but rather used for flavoring. The comparative data for the product

group is as follows:

Table 5.40 Tomato Product Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging! Packaging! Packaging! Weight! Weight! Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g!g g!serving g!use
194 0.660 * 0.038 0.052 0.895 *
195 0.971 * 0. 055 0.074 1.305 *
196 0.848 * 0.056 0.059 0.890 *
197 1.251 * 0.072 0.064 1.102 *

 

Product 194 used the least packaging material in this product group. The product
Was a 64 fluid ounce bottle of ketchup. The packaging for this product was a PET plastic
bOttle with a foil top seal and a polypropylene (PP) flip-top cap. Product 195 used the
most packaging in this product group. Product 195 was selected because of the largest
Packaging weight per manufacturer serving comparative value in the group. Product 195
was packaged in a PET bottle with a foil seal and a polypropylene (PP) flip-top closure.

The product was a 20 fluid ounce bottle of ketchup.

117

1.40,

 

 

1.20.. 7 , , , , , , 7 , .,

 

1.00.77 7, ,7,7, 77,,77, ,7,

 

 

 

 

0.80.7 7 ,7 ,, , , ,

 

0.60 - , 7 7 ,7

0.40 ._ _- . ” , , 7 7 _ _ ' 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

194 195 196 197

Product Number

Cl Volume Packaging! manufacturer serving: cm3/serving

IPackaging Weight! manufacturer serving: yserving

Figure 5.37 Tomato Product Comparative Data

118

TOOTHPASTE:

The toothpaste product category consisted of 6 product/package systems. The
standard use comparison was based upon the amount of toothpaste consumed per use,
which was found to be 1.572 grams. This amount was based upon normal use amounts

for Aaron Fitchko, the researcher in this project.

Table 5.41 Toothpaste Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging! Packaging! Packaging! Weight! Weight! Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g!serving g!use
226 0.235 0.237 0.150 0.140 0.219 0.220
227 0.272 0.245 0.156 0.129 0.226 0.203
228 0.730 0.593 0.378 0.357 0.691 0.562
229 0.219 0.202 0.128 0.099 0.170 0.156
230 0.291 0.276 0.175 0.171 0.283 0.268
231 2. 385 2.1 73 1.382 I. 276 2. 202 2. 006

 

Product 229 was found to use the least packaging material for this product group.
The package for this product consisted of a plastic self-standing tube with a flip-top
closure and a foil seal. Product 231 used the most packaging material in this product
group. This package consisted of a paperboard box and a two piece plastic pump. The

Pump consisted of a plastic bottom base and a plastic top pump piece.

119

2.5

  

0000000
0000000

0
0
0
0

00000

 

00000000000
0000000000
000000
009000
0006907
:00000

O
.0”
Q.”
"0

0ND>

00”.
JG
1.

0000 00
0” 0 0000
0 :0W00

«”3

am

3.;

000000

000000

00000000
909000000.

0 0 00
00000000000
0 00
0

0
0
O
O
9

0
0
O
n

00
000

Q
9

.9000.
000000
0.6
6.”

  

 

2.0.,

1.5

1.0.

‘0... OOOO‘OO'O:
0%"9609:

 

0.5

 

   

         

000000000000
000000000000
.0000000900
.00 ‘0'
.00 00

 
  

0040000

0000000000090
000000000000000
000000000000000.

00000090: 0.
000000 00:? 00A

 

 

Product Number

mg

cm3/serv'

DVolume Packaging! manufacturer serving

cm3/use

I Volume Packaging! Standard Use

mg

g!serv

IPackaging Weight! manufacturer serving

g!use

EPackaging Weight! Standard Use

Figure 5.38 Toothpaste Comparative Data

120

TUNA FISH:
The tuna fish product group consisted of 4 product/package systems. The tuna

fish product selected for analysis in this study was tuna fish packed in spring water.

Table 5.42 Tuna Fish Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging! Packaging! Packaging! Weight! Weight! Weight!
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/ g g!g g!serving g!use
241 3.020 2.500 0.042 0.181 12.852 10.640
242 5.602 6.236 0.066 0.350 29.905 33.293
255 1.730 2.320 0.025 0.154 10.714 14.367
256 27. 083 30.509 0.321 0. 569 47. 945 54. 009

 

Product 241 used the least packaging material in this product group based on
packaging weight per standard use. This package consisted of 3 6-ounce two-piece steel
can with a paper label. Product 256 used the most packaging material in the product
group. This product consisted of 3 two-piece steel cans with pull-tab lids, 3 paper labels,

3 plastic PET containers, 3 plastic seals on the PET containers, and a paperboard carton.

This product was a lunch pack variety of tuna fish.

121

      

  

xiéi

  

.....-.‘o......

....~“..~...ot
..............

20‘,,,,A , ,, , , ,

..........

0.9...

..-¢...
».

..

..

. ..:22t2€:2:22
"""“‘X":X‘.

 

242

   

Product Number

7 DVolume Packaging manufacturer sewing: cm3/serving
I Volume Packaging/ Standard Use: cm3/use
n Packaging Weight/ manufacturer sewing: g/serving

IPackaging Weight/ Standard Use: g!use

Figure 5.39 Tuna Fish Comparative Data

122

 

VEGETABLES:

The vegetable product group consisted of 6 product/package systems. Included in
this product group were canned vegetables, fresh vegetables and frozen vegetables. The
products selected included peas and carrots. The calorie information for the fresh
vegetables included in this product group was from information available in the grocery

stores from the United States Food and Drug Administration.

Table 5.43 Vegetable Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Wei ght/ Weight/ Weight/
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use
2 1 9 0.334 0.921 0.004 0.004 0.320 0.882
220 0.661 1.573 0.007 0.006 0.606 1.443
222 0.907 2.358 0.010 0.010 0.958 2.491
223 6.712 19.471 0.055 0.129 15.620 45.313
224 4.472 14. 425 0.036 0.127 15. 735 50. 758
225 7.628 9.897 0.078 0.063 6.137 7.962

 

Product 219 used the least packaging material in this product group. The package

consisted of a single low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bag. Product 224 used the most

packaging material in this product group. Product 224 was selected for analysis in the

market basket on a packaging weight per standard use basis. The package for product

224 consisted of a three-piece steel can and a paper label.

123

              

 

30,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,,2,,,2,7,
o o.
o 9.
a 90
o o.
9.00
a...
9900
.090
9 co
6..
o
20.-_.-_,,._,,,,, 5.2
15.,,,7,22,,,7, 7,?
O
o
10 ‘
O
.'# k i V 7 A i 7 7 00
0....
‘06..
O...
.00
”‘90
00000
‘ 0000.
0600
:00.
009‘
0‘.
0900‘
9.99
.90!
0.0.0
00.!
”Qt
00M.
09.”.
' 7 7 7 7 ,7 7 7 7 77 7 » 7’ 999:.-
:ON:
O 00
O
0' O
O a O
0.01
1
6.4
.-
..
.-
On
0|
.4
o
() fi
’7 . ,

 

223 224 225

 

219 220

Product Number

Volume Packaging/ manufacturer serving: cm3/serving

El
I Volume Packaging! Standard Use: cm3/use
I Packaging Weight/ manufacturer serving: g/serving
E

Packaging Weight! Standard Use: g/use

Figure 5.40 Vegetable Comparative Data

124

WATER:

This product group consisted of 9 product/package systems. The standard use

comparison was not used in this product group because water has no calories.

Table 5.44 Water Comparative Data

 

12:1 0‘33: Volume Packaging/ Volume Packaging/ Packaging Weight/ Packaging Weight/
Manufacturer serving ml product ml product Manufacturer serving

cm3/serving cm3/ml g/ml g/serving

100 5.305 0.020 0.027 6.933

101 5.969 0.022 0.031 8.308

102 10.389 0.036 0.056 16.159

104 10.970 0.045 0.049 12.062

105 16.686 0.068 0.029 7.212

106 8.834 0.033 0.043 11.449

107 10.090 0.019 0.025 13.163

108 4.509 0.017 0.015 4.057

109 5.302 0.021 0.021 5.443

 

Product 108 used the least packaging material in this product group. The
packaging of this product consisted of a gallon size HDPE plastic bottle. Product 102
used the most packaging material. The packaging of product 102 consisted of 4 plastic
PET bottles, and a paperboard carton. This product was selected for the market basket
because of the packaging weight per standard use comparative value, which is the largest

for the product group.

125

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Product Number

7 [IVolume Packaging/ manufacturer serving: cm3/serving

IPackaging Weight/ manufacturer serving: g/serving

Figure 5.41 Water Comparative Data

126

 

 

 

YOGURT:
The yogurt product group consisted of five product/package systems. The

products selected for this group were plain and strawberry yogurts.

Table 5.45 Yogurt Comparative Data

 

Product Volume Volume Volume Packaging Packaging Packaging
Number Packaging/ Packaging/ Packaging/ Weight/ Weight/ Weight/
Manufacturer Standard Use Product Product Manufacturer Standard Use
serving Weight Weight serving
cm3/serving cm3/use cm3/g g/g g/serving g/use
211 10.281 10.169 0.045 0.040 9.195 9.095
212 14.331 13.727 0.060 0.056 13.220 12.662
213 5.524 9.073 0.044 0.042 5.390 8.853
253 14.274 15.147 0.080 0.081 14.459 15.344
254 10.625 1 1.534 0.092 0.089 10.349 11.234

 

Product 213 used the least packaging material in this product group. The
packaging for this product consisted of 6 polypropylene plastic cups with a plastic/foil
laminate seal. Product 253 used the most packaging material in this product group on a
packaging weight per standard use basis. The packaging for this product consisted of a

single polystyrene (PS) tray with a plastic/foil laminate seal.

127

»»u
....... ..

90::“noon

122.4...
o...

c

X o
o
. .
.......3
..........

.......
.....

,3“

. .
gauun.

o.~ 'X

N
a.

':::§..

 

 

Product Number

 

 

.....:::,: .ggzo 5
'z' ... $12.... :

.2

 

El Volume Packaging/ manufacturer serving: cm3/serving
IVolume Packaging/ Standard Use: cm3/use

a Packaging Weight! manufacturer serving: g/serving

 

Figure 5.42 Yogurt Comparative Data

Packaging Weight/ Standard Use: g/use

128

 

5.3 Application of the Resultg

The information presented in this report is a basis for dozens of conclusions.
Each reading of the report leads to new, or enhanced, conclusions. Close reading,
thinking, and interpretation of the data lead the mind into new channels. To obtain full
value from the report, one must invest some time and thought in deeper conceptual
analysis than is usually used for this kind of comparative data. Modern packaging is
complex, and usually designed for a specific purpose. That purpose is usually closely
associated with product properties and life style choices on the part of the consumer. The
interpretations that follow discuss some general findings from the report. More can be
found through analysis of the data depending on the point of view and the objectives of

the reader.

5.3.1 Consumer Uses of lLat_a;

The main objective of this report was to provide consumers information regarding
packaging waste comparisons for consumer goods. This information can be applied to
help consumers purchase products on a “source reduction” basis. Consumers can learn
which packaging systems produce the least waste per product amount and which systems
produce the most waste per product amount. The report provides consumers with
specific information on 40 product categories, but the trends found can be applied over
the entire gamut of consumer products. The main method for consumers to apply this
information in their daily lives is to purchase products with this information in mind.
This may require a change in purchasing habits for some consumers. The consumer must

be willing to purchase product, not on a brand name basis, but on a packaging system

129

basis. The following data interpretations will aid consumers in understanding the trends

found in this study.

5.3.; Data Interpretation:

The most efficient packages tended to use single components while the least
efficient packages often used multiple components. An example of this was found in the
baking mix category. The muffin mix with the least packaging, 1.2 g package for 100 g
of product, was in a plastic pouch. The muffin mix with the most packaging, 14.3 g
package for 100 g of product, used a plastic pouch and a metal can inside a paperboard
carton.

The most efficient packages tended to use flexible materials, while the least
efficient packages tended to use rigid packaging systems. An example of this can be seen
in the poultry category. Chicken in a low-density polyethylene bag resulted in 0.3 g
package for 100 g of product, while chicken in a polystyrene tray with a plastic label and
plastic outer wrap resulted in 1.7 g package for 100 g of product.

The most efficient packages tended to contain larger quantities of product, while
the least efficient packages tended to contain single servings. An example of this can be
seen in the hand dish soap category. Soap in a 42.7 fl. oz HDPE bottle produced 4.7 g
package for 100 g of product, while soap in a 14.7 fl. oz PET bottle produced 6.9 g
package for 100 g of product. This relationship only holds true if the entire amount of
product from the larger sized item is used. If the product in the larger size is not used and

goes bad, both additional product and additional packaging reach the waste stream.

130

Convenience for the consumer often results in increased packaging. An example
of this can be seen in the toothpaste category. The most efficient tube resulted in 9.9 g
product for 100 g of toothpaste, while toothpaste in a dispensing pump (and a paperboard
box) resulted in 127 g package for 100 g of product. The convenience of the pump
system results in more packaging material being produced when the pump is empty. This
impact of the pump system can be lessened somewhat if refills for the system are used,
thereby removing the pump base from the waste stream.

Thinking outside the usual forms of products can result in equivalent product with
less packaging waste. An example of this can be seen in the vegetable category. Fresh
carrots in a plastic bag resulted in only 0.4 g package for 100 g of product, while canned
carrots resulted in 12.7 g package for 100 g of product. The product delivered to the
consumer is the same, carrot in this case, but the form of the product is different. The
canned carrots have been processed, while the fresh carrots appear in their whole,
unprocessed form. The consumer may produce additional wastes, such as peels and
stems, if whole carrots are purchased. This example illustrates that only packaging, and
not other wastes (such as carrot peels) were included in this study. However, it can be
noted that frozen carrots in a plastic bag resulted in only 1.0-g package for 100 g of

product.

5.4 Volume and Weight Comparison Discussion:
This study compared packaging systems on two separate bases, the packaging
weight and the packaging volume. These comparisons were typically in agreement when

looking at the packaging systems that produced the least and most packaging waste after

131

use. In this study, the selection of the product/packaging system that produced the least
waste was the packaging system that had the lower weight comparison values. This was
done because the weight comparison was more accurate, since a direct measure of the
packaging system was available. The volume as defined in this study is the space
occupied by the packaging material itself, not the amount of space within the package.
This is more difficult to determine accurately than the package weight. This was due in
part to the additional measurements required to determine the volume of the packaging
materials. When the volume has been determined, the amount of compressibility of the
package in a landfill is not known, so the effect on the volume is not known with any
precision. For example, a plastic wrap will compress to a very small volume, not much
more than its own intrinsic volume. A plastic bottle will be much less compressible
because of its shape, thickness and stiffness. The void volume of the bottle in a landfill
may be a much higher ratio than the void volume for a plastic wrap. The volume
comparisons in this study were therefore based upon the packaging system having an
insignificant void volume in a landfill setting.

The packaging system selected as producing the least and most packaging
material after use was typically in agreement, as stated above. For some categories, this
did not hold true. In these instances, the packaging system that produced the lowest
comparative values on a packaging weight basis would not produce the lowest values on
the volume basis. One reason for this occurrence is the inability to measure the
compressibility of the packaging system. An example of this can be seen in the egg
category. The package that produced the least packaging material overall was an

expanded polystyrene foam container (EPS). This packaging system had the lowest

132

comparative values in the packaging weight comparisons, thereby making it the choice
for lowest packaging material amounts. However, this packaging system was not the best
in the volume-based comparisons. This system produced higher comparative values for
the volume comparison than in another system consisting of a pulpboard package. The
difference in the volume based comparative values for the two packaging systems was
directly related to the compressibility of the two systems. The EPS system consists of an
expanded foam material, which has a large amount of void volume within the foam
structure. This void volume was not compressed during analysis thereby resulting in the
larger volume comparative values for this system. As stated before, the volume
measurements were not as accurate as the weight measurements due in part to the
inability to compress the package to a set level, or a level normally seen in a landfill. It
was not possible to compress the EPS system to a real-life landfill level, since no data on

this level exists and since the amount would vary significantly from landfill to landfill.

5.5 Manufacturer Serving Size and Standard Use Discussion:

Foods, and some other products as well, carry a manufacturer's recommendation
for the amount that constitutes a “use” or serving. These use amounts are the basis for
the nutritional information located on food packages. The caloric content and the
nutritional value are all based on one “use” or serving of a particular food product.
These use amounts also allow the manufacturer to set a serving per container value for
food items. The Food and Drug Administration and the U. S. Department of Agriculture
have developed a great deal of tabulated data on the “serving size” for many foods. The

size and nutritional value of a “serving” as determined by an individual manufacturer can

133

vary significantly, even within a single category. An example of this can be seen in the
cereal category. One manufacturer defined a “serving” as 150 calories for regular
oatmeal, but only 100 calories for instant oatmeal. A different manufacturer defined a
serving as 140 calories. Size of serving cannot be used any more reliably, especially
when comparisons must be made between products with different characteristics. A
serving of puffed rice is a different size than a serving of comflakes, for example.

Choosing an appropriate basis of comparison can be difficult. As illustrated
above, the meaning of a “serving” can be very different from manufacturer to
manufacturer. Comparisons based on manufacturer serving size can vary significantly
within the same product category if manufacturer serving levels are different. The
standard use basis, used in this study, rectifies this situation by making all serving
amounts equal among products within a product category.

The standard use for this study was based upon a 100 calorie per use basis for a
majority of the products in this study. This amount provided ease in calculating the
standard use serving amount for each product. This level can be changed, so long as it is
changed for every product comparison in the study.

For some products, the standard use comparison determined differently. The
products where this occurred were typically household items, such as hand soap and
toothpaste. The standard use amount for these products was set at normal use levels for
these products. This means that standard use amounts were set at the “standard amount
of product” typically used for these items by an individual. The levels were set through
an ad-hoc study among the thesis committee members. While this was not done by any

designed experiment with proven validity over all consumers, it was done in an unbiased

134

manner, and the same standard was used in all applications, so the comparison of
packaging material per use within a product category is based on a constant value. This
value can be changed so long as it is changed for every product in a given product
category. The product groups that had standard use levels set in this manner are

described in the following section.

5.5.1 Product Groups of Vgie‘dStandjid Use Levels_:

Nine product groups required different standard use quantities to be set for
comparative purposes in the study. The categories for which this was done are as
follows: cleaners, dish soap, hand soap, laundry detergent, paper towels, shampoo, tissue,
toilet tissue, and toothpaste.

The cleaner group was made up of powder and liquid products. The standard use
amount was determined through typical use levels for both forms of these products,
determined to be ‘A cup of product. The amount of liquid product required to fill ‘A cup
was determined to be 59 milliliters. The amount of powdered product required to fill ‘A
cup was determined to be 30 grams. These product amounts were used for the standard
use comparison level of ‘A cup for this product group.

The dish soap category consisted of 2 different product types, hand dish soap, and
automatic dish soap. The category was split into these two sub-categories for comparison
purposes, since hand dish soaps cannot be used in automatic dishwashers. The standard
use comparisons were based upon a one wash basis, which was determined to be 15 ml
for hand soaps and 56 g for automatic dish soaps. The automatic dish soaps came in two

product forms, powdered and liquid. The manufacturer of these products measures the

135

liquid form of these products in grams, not milliliters. This practice was continued in this
study and therefore the standard use level of 56 grams was used for both product forms.

The hand soap product group consisted of 9 product/package systems including
bar soaps and liquid soaps. The standard use amount was based upon actual hand
washings of the ad hoc study. This “study” consisted of a series of hand washings, from
which the average soap per use was calculated for each product type (liquid or bar). This
analysis determined that bar soap was used at 2.1 gram per washing, and liquid soap was
used at 5 milliliters per washing.

The laundry detergent product group consisted of 7 product/package systems.
This product category consisted of two product types, liquid detergents and solid
detergents. The standard use levels were determined through actual measurements of
laundry detergent used to do one wash load. A regular sized wash load was selected for
analysis in the study. The standard use amount for powdered detergent was 62 grams per
use, and for liquid detergent was 121 milliliters per use.

The shampoo category consisted of 4 product/packaging systems. Standard use
comparisons for this product category were based upon the amount of shampoo used for
one wash, determined to be 10 milliliters.

The toothpaste product category consisted of 6 product/package systems. The
standard use comparison was based upon the amount of toothpaste used for one brushing.
This amount was determined to be 1.572 grams.

The paper product groups that were analyzed in this study had standard use
amounts based upon an amount of product typically used for one use. The paper towel

standard use comparison was based upon one ll”xl 1” paper towel per use. The tissue

136

standard use comparison was based upon 1 sq. ft. of tissue per use. The toilet tissue
product category standard use comparison was based upon 1 sq. ft. of tissue per use.
These standard use levels can be changed to any desired amount so long as the

amount is applied to every product in the particular product category.

137

Chapter 6

S_ummary aud Suggestions for Figure Research

This chapter will present the summary of the study, including a review of the
objectives and major trends found in the study. The chapter concludes with a discussion

of future research suggestions.

6.1 Summafl:

Source reduction is a practice that can have a significant impact on waste
reduction. This is the process in which the amount of waste generated is reduced at the
designing, manufacturing, packaging and purchasing phase of a product. Consumers can
apply source reduction practices during the selection/purchasing phase of consumer
goods. This study provides consumers with information regarding consumer packaging
on a source reduction per amount of product basis.

The purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive analysis of reduced
packaging for common consumer items found in supermarkets. The analysis was done to
provide information about the amount of waste that a packaging system provides after
product use. This will act as a guide to the types of grocery item packaging systems that
will provide the consumer with the least material to dispose of after product use.

The approach was to select an array of supermarket product categories
representative of consumer purchases; to identify within the categories specific products
that are offered in a variety of sizes, modes of preparation, and types of packaging. The

study consisted of 40 categories of products, represented by 252 individual products.

138

Within each product category, a range of products was selected that represented
the variety of packaging options available in the supermarket. The objective was to
include all combinations of packaging that might result from purchases of product based
on life style choices not necessarily related to minimizing packaging solid waste. Thus,
the consumer can know the packaging solid waste impact of most of the purchase choices
available.

The amount of packaging for each product was determined. This was, in fact, a
determination of the amount of solid waste resulting from each package type, each kind
of material, or combination of package type and material. The amount of packaging was
determined on both a weight basis, and a volume basis. The weight basis is the easier of
the two to determine, and is the easier one for most people to visualize. The volume
basis refers to the volume of the solid packaging material that surrounds the product.

Once the weight and volume of the packaging components were determined, the
calculated weight and volume of packaging material used per unit amount of product was
determined. This calculation was made on three different bases: 1) per gram of product
for solids or per milliliter of product for liquids, 2) per manufacturer’s recommended use,
and 3) per standard use. The standard use calculation involves a level of “use” that is
equivalent for all products in a particular product group. These comparisons were then
used to determine the packaging systems that provided the most and the least material per
delivered unit of product after product use for each product category.

The products were then grouped into two hypothetical “market baskets”. Market
basket 1 is the group of products using the least packaging per amount of product, and

market basket 2 is the group of products using the most packaging per amount of product.

139

The volume of packaging material per standard use in market basket 2 was 7.5 times the
volume in market basket 1. The packaging weight per standard use in market basket 2
was 15.2 times the weight in market basket 1. The volume of packaging per gram of
product and the packaging weight per gram of product were 4.1 and 5.7 times,
respectively, as large in market basket 2 as in market basket 1. The comparisons based
on the number of uses or servings are the most relevant in educating consumers to make

choices that reduce generation of packaging waste.

§._2_ ConcLusions:

The main objective of this report was to provide consumers information regarding
packaging waste comparisons for consumer goods. This information can be applied to
help consumers purchase products on a “source reduction” basis. Consumers can learn
which packaging systems produce the least waste per product amount and which systems
produce the most waste per product amount. The report provides consumers with
specific information on 40 product categories, but the trends found can be applied over
the entire gamut of consumer products. The main method for consumers to apply this
information in their daily lives is to purchase products with this information in mind.
This may require a change in purchasing habits for some consumers. The consumer must
be willing to purchase product, not on a brand name basis, but on a packaging system
basis. The following data interpretations will aid consumers in understanding the trends
found in this study.

A consumer purchasing a “market basket” containing one standard unit of each

product and choosing the items with the most packaging would end up with more than

140

five times the weight of packaging as a consumer choosing the “market basket” of items
with the least packaging.

Consumer life style choices play a large role in the amount of packaging that
accompanies a product. A consumer choice to use prepared meals rather than preparing
fresh food has an impact on the amount of packaging used. Usually this choice leads to
more packaging because of the more complex requirements for preservation of the
prepared food. A consumer choice to buy in small quantity rather than large quantity has
in impact on the amount of packaging used. Usually this choice leads to more packaging,
but more packaging may be cheaper and more environmentally friendly than discarded
product.

The most efficient packages tended to use single components, such as a flexible
plastic pouch. The least efficient packages tended to consist of multiple components.

The most efficient packages tended to consist of flexible material, whereas the
least efficient packages tended to use rigid materials. Rigid materials include components
such as corrugated boxes and glass bottles.

The packaging systems that most often appeared in market basket 1 include
paper/plastic/foil laminate pouches, single low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bags,

polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, and plastic pouches. Market basket 2 was
primarily composed of packages that used multiple components in the packaging system.
These systems include paperboard cartons with internal plastic sealed bags, amber and
clear glass jars with paper labels, expanded polystyrene trays (EPS) with plastic wrap,

and corrugated boxes with plastic/foil pouches inside.

141

The most efficient packages tended to contain larger quantities of product, while
the least efficient packages tended to contain smaller quantities. This effect only holds
true if all product from the larger sized package is used. If product is wasted, such as
spoilage, both additional product and additional packaging are reaching the waste stream.

The decisions a consumer makes when purchasing grocery items can have a
significant impact on the amount of packaging material that they discard. By applying
the information found in this study, consumers can decrease their output of packaging
wastes on a per amount of product basis. Consumers can also influence product
manufacturers’ choice of packaging systems by “voting” with their purchasing power.
This can lead to continued innovations of packaging systems on the manufacturers’ part

to reduce waste amounts on a per amount of product basis.

142

6.3 Liruitations of the Study:

This study examined only retail packaging. In some cases, less primary packaging for
the consumer to take home involves the use of more secondary packaging for safe
distribution of the product. No attempt was made to examine the effects of retail
packaging on distribution packaging.

The study focused on the weight and volume of packaging. The amount of
disposed waste generated by a purchasing decision is influenced also by the amount of
the packaging which can be diverted to recycling, or which can be reused. These factors
were not considered in determining the most and least efficient packages. In addition to
waste, there are a number of other important environmental impacts of packaging, such
as resource use, including energy; and environmental emissions, including air and water
pollutants. These were not addressed in any systematic fashion. Further, minimal
packaging is successful only to the extent that it delivers product in an acceptable
condition to the consumer. The amount and type of packaging has an effect on the shelf
life of the product (the length of time it remains salable) and thus affects the amount of

the product, with its associated packaging, that reaches the waste stream.

6.4 Suggestions for Future Research:

 

The results of this study were based upon comparisons of packaging material per
amount of product basis. These results were focused toward consumers, and the
packaging that consumers take home. This means that only the primary packaging
materials were analyzed. The study did not include the secondary (distribution)

packaging in which the primary packages were delivered. Inclusion of these in the study

143

would provide a broader look at all the packaging materials used in delivering a
consumer product to the consumer’s home. This would provide an opportunity to
evaluate each product/package system as a whole. The inclusion of the secondary
materials would level the playing field further for each system within a product group.
Some primary packaging systems may be “light weighted” in order to save on primary
packaging materials. This would require a strong secondary packaging component to
protect the product from damage during transit. In this study, items like this may produce
good results, but in essence may produce more waste due to the requirement of a larger
secondary packaging system.

This study was focussed on a single environmental area, source reduction. The
study was designed to compare consumer packaging for source reduction purposes.
Other environmental effects such as recycling, composting, air emissions and water
emissions were not included. The inclusion of these areas in the study would provide a
larger overall picture of the waste effect of consumer packaging. This would allow for
evaluation of the consumer packaging systems on more of a true life-cycle assessment
scale. This, however, would be difficult to do since each component in a given
packaging system would need to have each environmental impact quantified. Some of
the environmental components, such as recycling and composting, would have readily
available information regarding the given packaging components. The difficulty arises in
quantifying impacts, such as emissions and waste water effluents. Future studies in this
area should pursue inclusion of more environmental factors, although not all areas may

be feasible to quantify.

144

The data obtained from this study can also be used in future works for
comparative purposes. The raw data collected can be used to compare packaging systems
on a variety of other bases. This will allow for future researchers to compare
product/package systems on different scales other than a per amount of product basis.

The study can also be used as a guideline for concept application to other areas of
packaging. Studies could be done in a variety of areas other than consumer goods. These

could include distribution packaging and institutional packaging to name a few.

145

Appendix A

Pictures of Product Groups

    

A. 1' "Baby Food Product Group
Product 69: paperboard box with outer plastic wrapping. Product 70: paperboard box with outer plastic
wrapping. Product 133: clear glass jar with a metal recloseable lid. Product 146: Paper/foil/plastic laminate
pouch.

 

A.2 Baking Mix Product Group

Product 40: Plastic pillow pouch. Product 41: Paperboard box with paper/plastic laminate bag. Product 42:
Paperboard box, plastic pillow pouch, steel 2-piece steel can. Product 43: Paper bag. Product 44:
Paper/plastic laminate bag.

146

  

.5. «u. .-,.

 

A.3 Beer Product Group
Product 243: Paperboard box with 12 aluminum cans. Product 244: Paperboard box with 24 aluminum

cans. Product 245: Con'ugated box with 12 amber bottles. Product 246: 40 oz. amber glass bottle. Product
247: 6 aluminum cans with plastic ring holder. Product 248: 6 amber glass bottles with paperboard carton.

 

A.4 Bread Product Group
Product 77: LDPE plastic bag. Product 78: LDPE plastic bag, inner plastic wrap. Product 79: LDPE
plastic bag, inner plastic wrap.

147

    

A.5 Candy Product Group

Product 71: LDPE plastic bag, plastic candy wrapper, paperboard backing, paper cup. Product 72: Plastic
outer bag, foil candy wrap, paper cup. Product 73: Plastic outer wrap, paperboard tray, paper cup.
Product 74: Plastic outer wrap, paperboard tray, paper cup. Product 75: Plastic outer wrap, paperboard
tray, plastic candy wrap, paper cups. Product 76: Plastic outer bag, foil candy wrapper, paper cup.

148

    

A.6 Cereal Product Group
Product 1: Paperboard tube, plastic top. Product 2: Paperboard tube, plastic top. Product 3: Paperboard
box, 12 paper/plastic laminate pouches. Product 4: Paperboard box, inner plastic cereal pouch. Product 5:
Paperboard box, inner plastic cereal pouch. Product 6: LDPE plastic bag. Product 7: Outer plastic wrap, 8
paperboard boxes, 8 inner plastic cereal pouches. Product 25: Paperboard tube, plastic top.

Product 26: Paperboard tube, plastic top.

149

    

A.7 Cheese Product Group
Product 147: Plastic pillow pouch (vacuum-sealed). Product 148: Wax outer coating, inner plastic wrap.
Product 149: Paperboard carton, 4 plastic sealed cheese wraps, individual plastic cheese wraps. Product
150: Plastic outer wrap, individual plastic cheese wraps. Product 151: Plastic recloseable bag.

Product 152: Plastic pillow pouch, paperboard backing. Product 153: LDPE plastic recloseable bag.
Product 154: HDPE plastic tub with HDPE lid. Product 155: Ceramic jar, inner plastic sealed tube, metal
closure. Product156: Plastic tub, plastic lid.

150

 

A.8 Chip Product Group

Product 35: Plastic/paper laminate bag. Product 36: Plastic/paper laminate pouch. Product 37:
Plastic/paper laminate bag. Product 38: Paperboard tube, metal bottom, plastic/foil/paper seal, plastic lid.
Product 39: Paperboard box, 2 foil/plastic laminate bags.

 

Product 173: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 175: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 249: PET plastic bottle.
Product 250: Paperboard laminated box.

151

 

A.10 Cookie Product Group

Productl7: Paper/foil/plastic laminate bag, paperboard tray. Product 18: Paper/plastic bag, 2 paper cups.
Product 19: Paperboard carton, plastic wrap. Product 20: Paperboard box, plastic/foil inner bag. Product 21:
EPS tray, plastic wrapping.

 

Al 1 Cookie Product Group
Product 22: Plastic outer wrap, PS tray. Product 23: Plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 24: Plastic/foil
laminate pouch, paperboard tray. Product 27: Paperboard box, plastic/foil laminate bag, PS tray. Product
28: Paperboard box, 4 plastic sealed wrappers. Product 29: PS carton.

152

 

A. 12 Cracker Product Group

Product 30: Paperboard box, 3 plastic sealed bags. Product 31: Paperboard carton, 4 plastic sealed bags.
Product 32: Paperboard box, 4 plastic sealed bags. Product 33: Paper/plastic laminate bag. Product 34:
Plastic fin vertical back sealed pouch.

 

A. l 3 Dinners Product Group

Product 185: Paperboard carton, EPS tray, Paper/plastic laminate tray, plastic/foil laminate pouch, plastic
pouch, outer plastic wrapping. Product 186: Plastic sealed outer pouch, top and bottom seal with fin vertical
seal, plastic pouch for sauce, plastic mesh pouch. Product 187: Paperboard box, plastic/foil laminate pouch.
Product 188: Paperboard carton, paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 189: Paperboard box,
paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 190: Paperboard box, plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 191:
Paperboard carton, PET plastic plate, Plastic film plate covering. Product 192: Paperboard carton, plastic
tray, plastic film cover. Product 193: Three-piece steel can, paper label.

153

  

A.14 Hand Dish Soap Product Category
Product 176: PET plastic bottle (42 fl.oz). Product 177: PET plastic bottle (14.7 fl.oz.).
Product 178: HDPE plastic bottle (42.7 fl.oz). Product 179: HDPE plastic bottle (28 fl.oz.)

 

A.15 Auto Dish Detergent Product Group
Product 180: Paperboard box with paper/foil laminate outer label. Product 18]: HDPE plastic bottle.

154

 

A.16 Drink Mix Product Group

Product 1 17: Aluminum can. Product 118: HDPE plastic container, plastic label. Product 119: Paperboard
carton, 4 paper/plastic/foil pouches. Product 120: Plastic tube, 6 plastic tubs, 6 plastic/foil laminate seals.
Product 121: Paperboard cylinder, metal bottom and top, plastic recloseable lid. Product 259:
Paper/plastic/foil pouch.

 

A.17 Egg Product Group
Product 171: EPS foam container. Product 172: Pulpboard container. Product 174: Pulpboard container,
plastic wrap. Product 258: EPS foam container, plastic wrap.

155

    

. . . , 2.1 b '
A. l 8 Fruit Product Group
Product 214: Plastic mesh bag, plastic label. Product 215: Clear glass jar, metal lug closure. Product 216:

3-piece steel can, paper label. Product 217: 3-piece steel can, paper label. Product 218: Paperboard carton,
4 three-piece aluminum cans, 4 paper labels. Product 221: HDPE plastic bag.

 

A.19 Gum Product Group

Product 45: Plastic outer bag, 4 plastic/foil laminate gum wrappers, 20 paper/plastic laminate gum
wrappers. Product 46: Plastic bag, paper adhesive label, 17 paper/plastic gum wrappers. Product 47:
Plastic outer bag, adhesive paper label, 8 plastic/foil laminate gum wrappers, 40 paper wrappers, 40 foil
wrappers. Product 48: Plastic/foil laminate gum wrapper, 5 paper wrappers, 5 foil wrappers. Product 134:
Paperboard carton, plastic blister pack, foil/plastic laminate seal.

156

    

A.20 Hand Soap Product Group
Product 8: PET plastic bottle. Product 9: Paperboard box, 2 plastic soap wraps. Product10: Plastic/foil
laminate wrapping, 3 paper/plastic soap wraps. Product 11: Paperboard backing card, 10 plastic/paper
laminate soap wraps, plastic wrap. Product 12: 2 paperboard boxes, paper/plastic laminate soap wraps.
Product 13: Paperboard box, PET plastic bottle. Product 14: Paperboard laminate box. Product 15:
Paper/plastic laminate wrap, paperboard backing. Product 16: Plastic (PET) bottle with hand pump.

 

A.21 Ice Cream Product Group

Product 236: HDPE plastic tub, plastic lid. Product 237: Laminated paperboard carton. Product 238:
Paperboard tub, plastic lid. Product 239: Paperboard tub, paperboard lid. Product 240: Paperboard tub,
paper/plastic laminate lid.

157

Minute;
hi '

11;:

‘J mew
$111.: ,(

 

A.22 Juice Product Group

Product 80: 6 steel cans, plastic ring holder, plastic/foil laminate closures. Product 82: 3-piece steel can,
paper label. Product 89: Corrugated box, 10 plastic/foil laminate pouches, 10 straws and plastic straw
wrappers. Product 90: Paperboard tube, metal top and bottom, plastic closure. Product 93: Paperboard
gable-top carton. Product 94: Paperboard gable-top carton. Product 96: Paperboard gable-top carton,
plastic closure. Product 97: Paperboard tube, metal top and bottom, plastic closure. Product 98: Paperboard
carton, 3 gable-top paperboard cartons, plastic straws. Product 99: 6 HDPE plastic bottles with plastic
closures, plastic outer wrapping, paperboard backer material, plastic labels.

M ' 3,3 “
' :WM it.

‘01)". A'Yt. ‘”

1U:

    

A.23 Juice Product Group
Product 81: 4 paperboard laminate drink boxes, plastic outer wrap. Product 83: 3 paperboard laminate drink
boxes, outer plastic wrapping. Product 84: 9 paperboard laminate drink boxes, plastic outer wrap. Product
85: PET plastic bottle with HDPE cap. Product 86: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 88: Clear glass bottle,
paper label. Product 91: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 92: HDPE gallon jug.

158

    

A.24 Laundry Detergent Product Group
Product 110: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 1 l l: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 1 12: HDPE plastic bottle.
Product 113: Paperboard box. Product 1 l4: Paperboard box. Product 115: LDPE plastic bag. Product 1 l6:
Paperboard box.

 

A.25 Lunch Meat Product Group

Product 157: LDPE plastic pouch. Product 158: Paperboard carton, 4-sided sealed plastic pouch.
Product 159: Plastic recloseable bag. Product 160: LDPE plastic recloseable bag, plastic inner
wrap.

 

A.26 Margarine Product Group

Product 167: Paperboard carton, 2 Polypropylene plastic cups and lids. Product 168: Paperboard carton, 4
foil wrappers. Product 169: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 170: HDPE plastic tub with lid. Product 257:
Paperboard carton, 4 paper wrappers.

159

 

 

   

A.27 Meat Product Group
Product 198: EPS foam tray, plastic wrap material, laminated plastic film on EPS foam. Product 199: EPS
foam tray, plastic wrap material, laminated plastic film on EPS foam. Product 200: EPS foam tray, plastic
wrapping. Product 20]: EPS foam tray, plastic wrapping.

‘
HI ”.11
“HS

A.28 Milk Product Group
Product 161: HDPE half-gallon jug. Product 162: HDPE plastic gallon jug. Product 163: Paperboard
gable-top carton. Product 164: Paperboard gable-top carton. Product 165: Paperboard gable-top carton.
Product 166: PET plastic bottle. Product 251: HDPE plastic pigmented bottle, plastic label. Product 252: 6
HDPE plastic pigmented bottles, 6 plastic labels, plastic wrapping. Product 260: LDPE plastic bag.

160

 

A.29 Paper Towel Product Group
Product 182: LDPE plastic outer wrapping. Product 183: LDPE plastic roll wrapping. Product 184: LDPE
plastic outer wrapping, 8 LDPE plastic roll wrappings.

161

 

.(‘rintqitv

 

A,30 Pasta Product Group
Product 50: Paperboard box. Product 51: Plastic bag. Product 52: Paperboard carton. Product 53: Plastic
pouch. Product 54: Plastic tray, plastic film cover. Product 55: Paper/plastic laminate bag. Product 56:
Plastic pouch. Product 57: EPS foam tray, plastic wrap. Product 58: Plastic bag, adhesive paper closure.

 

A.31 Pet Food Product Group

Product 59: HDPE plastic container. Product 60: 3-piece steel can, paper label. Product 61: 2-piece steel
can, paper label. Product 62: Paperboard box. Product 63: Paper/plastic laminate bag. Product 64: 2-piece
metal can, paper label. Product 65: Plastic tray, plastic/foil laminate seal. Product 66: Multi-wall paper bag.
Product 67: Paperboard box, 6 plastic pouches.

162

 

 

A.32 Poultry Product Group
Product 202: LDPE plastic bag. Product 203: EPS foam tray, plastic label, plastic wrapping.

    

A33Shampoo Prod ct Group
Product 232: HDPE plastic pigmented bottle. Product 233: PET plastic bottle. Product 234: HDPE plastic
pigmented bottle. Product 235: HDPE plastic pigmented bottle.

‘1‘, «it Ill-aw we 1.

 

A.34 Soft Drink Product Group

Product [35: Paperboard carton, 24 aluminum cans. Product 139: 6 aluminum cans, plastic ring holder.
Product 140: LDPE plastic outer wrapping, 12 aluminum cans. Product 144: Paperboard carton, 12
aluminum cans.

163

 

a:

 

A.35 Soft Drink Product Group

Product 136: 6 PET plastic bottles, plastic ring holder. Product 137: Amber glass bottle. Product 138:
PET plastic bottle (3-liter). Product 141: PET plastic bottle (2-liter). Product 142: Paperboard
carton, 6 clear glass bottles. Product 143: PET plastic bottle.

 

A.36 Soup Product Group

Product 204: Paperboard carton, 4 paper/plastic/foil laminate pouches. Product 205: Paper/plastic/foil
laminate pouch. Product 206: Paperboard cup, paper/plastic laminate seal. Product 207: Paperboard
carton, 2 HDPE plastic trays, plastic film. Product 208: 2-piece steel can, paper label. Product 209: 3-piece
steel can, paper label. Product 210: Clear glass jar, metal lug cap.

 

:",'_}
1.4:,

 

A.37 Tissue Product Group

Product 122: Plastic outer wrap, 8 plastic tissue wraps. Product 123: Paperboard box, plastic wrap, plastic
adhesive card. Product 124: Paperboard box, plastic outer wrap. Product 125: 3 paperboard boxes, outer
plastic wrap. Product 126: Paperboard box, plastic film window. Product 127: Outer plastic wrap, 6 plastic
pouches.

   

Product 128: Outer plastic wrap. Product 129: Outer plastic wrap. Product 130: Paper outer wrap.

165

1‘75

 

A39 Tomato Product Group
Product 194: PET plastic bottle. Product 195: PET plastic bottle. Product 196: Plastic laminate bottle.
Product 197: Plastic laminate bottle.

 

A.40 Toothpaste Product Group

Product 226: Paperboard carton, plastic/foil laminate tube. Product 227: Paperboard carton, Plastic tube.
Product 228: Paperboard carton, plastic/foil laminate tube. Product 229: Plastic self-standing laminate
tube. Product 230: Plastic molded container, inner plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 231: Paperboard
carton, plastic molded pump container.

 

A.4l Tuna Fish Product Group

Product 241: 2-piece can, paper label. Product 242: Paperboard carton, 3 2-piece steel cans, 3 paper labels.
Product 255: 2-piece steel can, paper label. Product 256: Paperboard carton, 3 PET plastic containers, 3 2-
piece steel cans, 3 paper labels, 3 plastic seals.

166

 

A.42 Vegetable Product Group

Product 219: LDPE plastic bag. Product 220: LDPE plastic bag. Product 222: LDPE plastic bag. Product
223: 2-piece steel can, paper label. Product 224: 3-piece steel can, paper label. Product 225: Paperboard
box, foil/plastic/paper laminate wrap.

 

A.43 Water Product Group
Product 105: PET plastic gallon jug. Product 107: PET plastic bottle with handle. Product 108: HDPE
plastic gallon jug. Product 109: HDPE 2.5 gallon jug.

 

A.44 Water Product Group

Product 100: PET plastic bottle. Product 101: PET plastic bottle. Product 102: Paperboard holder, 4 PET
plastic bottles. Product 104: 4 PET plastic bottles, plastic ring holder. Product 106: 6 PET plastic bottles,
plastic outer wrap.

167

 

 

A.45 Yogurt Product Group

Product 21 1: PP plastic cup, HDPE lid, plastic/foil laminate seal. Product 212: PP plastic cup, PS lid, foil
seal. Product 213: 6 plastic cups, plastic/foil laminate seals. Product 253: PS plastic tray, plastic/foil
laminate seal. Product 254: Paperboard carton, 6 plastic cups with paper/plastic laminate seals.

168

 

 

Appendix B

Master List of Products in Study

 

Product
Number

1

\IQM-D-DJN

_.oooo

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26

27

28
29
30
31
32
33
34

Product
Category

Cereal

Cereal
Cereal
Cereal
Cereal
Cereal
Cereal

Soap
Soap
Soap
Soap

Soap
Soap
Soap
Soap
Soap
Cookies
Cookies

Cookies
Cookies
Cookies
Cookies
Cookies
Cookies
Cereal

Cereal
Cookies

Cookies
Cookies
Crackers
Crackers
Crackers
Crackers
Crackers

Label
Weight

oz, fl oz

18

42
11.08
10
20
10
8

15
9

15
50

9
7.5
10
5.75
7.5
18
7.25

10
16
18
15
2.85
1.4
42

18
6.4

22
18
12
16
16
13
12

Description

Paperboard tube, paper tube bottom, plastic lid, plastic film tamper

evident seal. is
Paperboard tube, paper tube bottom, plastic lid, plastic film seal. "
Paperboard box, 12 paper/plastic laminate pouches.

Paperboard box, plastic inner pouch with vertical fin back seal.
Paperboard box, plastic inner pouch with vertical fin back seal.
Plastic LDPE bag, vertical fin back seal.

8 paperboard cartons, 8 inner plastic pouches with vertica fin back
seal, outer plastic wrap.

PET plastic bottle

Paperboard box, 2 plastic soap wraps. 2 bars.

3 paper/plastic laminate wraps. Outer plastic/foil laminate wrap.
10 paper/plastic laminate wraps. Paperboard backing, plastic outer
wrap.

2 paperboard boxes. Plastic outer wrap.

Paperboard carton, PET plastic bottle with plastic pump.
Paperboard laminate box. 2 bars.

Paper/plastic soap wrap. Paperboard backing.

PET plastic bottle with plastic pump.

Paper/foil/plastic laminate bag, corrugated paper tray.
Paper/foil/plastic laminate bag, 2 paper cups, 1 paperboard backing
tray.

Paperboard tray, plastic outer wrap

Paperboard box, plastic/foil laminate bag

Expanded polystyrene tray, plastic outer wrap, 2 adhesive labels.
Polystyrene tray, plastic outer wrap

Plastic/foil laminate pouch

Plastic/foil laminate pouch, paperboard tray

Paperboard tube, paper bottom, plastic lid, plastic lid ring, plastic
seal.

Paperboard tube, paper bottom, plastic lid, plastic lid ring, plastic
seal.

Gable-top paperboard box, plastic/foil laminate bag, polystyrene
tray.

Paperboard box, 4 plastic inner pouches.

Polystyrene container.

Paperboard box, 3 plastic bags.

Paperboard box, 4 plastic bags.

Paperboard box, 4 plastic bags.

Paper/plastic laminate gusseted bag.

Plastic bag.

 

169

 

35
36
37
38

39
4o
41
42
43
44
45

46
47

48
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58

59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
69
70
71

72
73
74

75

76
77
78
79

Chips
Chips
Chips
Chips

Chips
Baking Mix
Baking Mix
Baking Mix
Baking Mix
Baking Mix

Gum

Gum
Gum

Gum
Pasta
Pasta
Pasta
Pasta
Pasta
Pasta
Pasta
Pasta
Pasta

Pet Food
Pet Food
Pet Food
Pet Food
Pet Food
Pet Food
Pet Food
Pet Food
Pet Food
Baby Food
Baby Food
Candy

Candy
Candy
Candy

Candy

Candy
Bread
Bread
Bread

14
24
8.5
17.5
80
6.5
3.5

3.8
0.5

16
16
16

32
12

36
13
5.5
18
56

3.5
288
12
16

13.8

Plastic/paper laminate bag.

Plastic/paper laminate bag.

Plastic/paper laminate bag.

Paperboard tube, metal bottom, plastic HDPE recloseable lid,
paper/foil laminate seal.

Paperboard box, 2 foil bags

Plastic pillow pouch

Paperboard box, waxed paper bag.

Paperboard box, plastic pillow pouch, 2-piece steel can.

Paper bag

Plastic/paper laminate bag.

Plastic outer wrap, 5 plastic/foil laminate wrappers, 20 paper gum
wrappers. 4 packs

Plastic outer bag, paper adhesive label, 17 paper gum wrappers
Plastic outer bag, adhesive label, plastic/foil laminate wrapper,
paper wraps, foil wraps. 8 packs.

Plastic/foil outer wrap. 5 paper wrappers, 5 foil wrappers. 1 pack
Paperboard box, plastic window

Plastic pillow pouch with vertical fin back seal.

Paperboard box, plastic window

Plastic pillow pouch with vertical fin back seal.

Plastic tray, plastic film top seal.

Paper/plastic laminate gusseted bag.

Plastic bag with vertical fin back seal

Expanded polystyrene (EPS) carton, outer plastic wrap.
Plastic bag, adhesive paper seal, adhesive paper label. Bag
bunched and sealed at top.

Plastic HDPE container, plastic lid.

3 piece metal can. Paper label.

2 piece metal can. Paper label.

Paperboard box

Paper/plastic laminate bag

2 piece metal can. Paper label.

Plastic tray with plastic/foil seal.

Multi-wall paper bag, plastic inner liner.

Paperboard box, 6 plastic pouches.

Paperboard box, plastic outer wrap.

Paperboard box, plastic outer wrap.

Plastic outer bag, plastic candy wrap, paper cups, paperboard
backing trays.

Plastic outer bag, foil candy wrap, paper cups.

Plastic outer wrap, paper cup, paperboard backing

Plastic outer wrap, plastic candy wrap, paper cup, paperboard
backing tray.

Plastic outer bag, paperboard tray, plastic candy wrap, paperboard
backing, paper cups.

Plastic outer bag, foil candy wrap, paper cups.

LDPE plastic bag

LDPE plastic bag, inner plastic wrap

LDPE plastic bag, inner plastic wrap

 

170

 

80
81
82
83
84

85
86
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
96
97
98
99

100
101
102
104
105
106
107
108
109
110

111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121

122

Juice
Juice
Juice
Juice
Juice

Juice
Juice
Juice
Juice
Juice
Juice
Juice
Juice
Juice
Juice
Juice
Juice
Juice

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Laundry
Detergent
Laundry
Detergent
Laundry
Detergent
Laundry
Detergent
Laundry
Detergent
Laundry
Detergent
Laundry
Detergent
Drink Mix
Drink Mix
Drink Mix
Drink Mix
Drink Mix

Tissue

33
17
46
25.5
76

128
120
64
67.5
12
96
127
32
16
64
16
24
48

50.7
33.8
67.6
80
136
100
136
128
320
50

200
90
186
22
142
39
11.5
19
1.4

1.8
19

6 3-piece steel can. Plastic ring holder

4 paper/plastic/foil laminate tetra-pak boxes. Plastic outer wrap
3-piece steel can. Paper label

3 paper/plastic/foil laminate tetra-pak boxes. Plastic outer wrap
9 paper/plastic/foil laminate tetra-pak boxes. Paperboard label,
plastic outer wrap.

PET plastic bottle with recloseable cap

HDPE plastic bottle, recloseable cap

Clear glass bottle

10 plastic/foil laminate pouches, corrugated carton

Paperboard tube, metal top and bottom lids, plastic seal.

Plastic bottle, foil seal, plastic cap.

HDPE plastic gallon jug

Paperboard gable-top carton

Paperboard gable-top carton

Paperboard gable-top carton, plastic spout, plastic cap.
Paperboard tube, metal top and bottom lids, plastic seal.

3 paperboard gable-top cartons, paperboard holder.

6 HDPE plastic bottle. 6 plastic shrinkwrap labels. Plastic outer
wrap, paperboard label

PET plastic bottle, plastic screw closure.

PET plastic bottle, plastic screw closure.

4 PET plastic bottles, 4 plastic screw closures. Paperboard carton.
4 PET plastic bottles, 4 plastic screw closures. Plastic ring holder.
PET gallon jug

6 PET bottles, 6 plastic closures. Outer plastic wrap.

PET bottle with handle

HDPE gallon jug

HDPE 2.5 gallon jug, plastic spout.

HDPE plastic bottle with cap

HDPE plastic bottle with cap

HDPE plastic bottle with cap

Paperboard box, plastic strap.

Paperboard box

Plastic bag

Paperboard box

Aluminum can

HDPE Plastic container, screw on top. Plastic label on outside.
Paperboard box with 4 plastic/foil/paper laminate pouches.
Plastic tube with 6 plastic foil sealed cups. Plastic outer label.

Paperboard tube with metal top/bottom. Paper label, HDPE plastic
recloseable lid

Pocket 8 plastic wraps. Plastic outer wrap.

171

 

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
146
147
148
149

150
151
152

153
154
155

156
157
158
159
160
161
162

Tissue

Tissue

Tissue

Tissue

Tissue

Toilet

Pack

Cold Paperboard box, plastic window, plastic outer wrap.

Care
Unsce Paperboard box, plastic window

nted
Travel 3 Paperboard boxes, plastic outer wrap.

ers

Family Paperboard box, plastic window.

Pack
Travel 6 recloseable plastic pouches. Plastic outer wrap.
Tissue

s

4 rolls 4 toilet tissue rolls. Plastic outer wrap.

Tissue
Toilet
Tissue
Toilet
Tissue
Baby Food
Gum
Soft Drinks
Soft Drinks
Soft Drinks
Soft Drinks
Soft Drinks
Soft Drinks
Soft Drinks
Soft Drinks
Soft Drinks
Soft Drinks
Baby Food
Cheese
Cheese
Cheese

Cheese
Cheese
Cheese

Cheese
Cheese
Cheese

Cheese
Lunch Meat
Lunch Meat
Lunch Meat
Lunch Meat

Milk
Milk

12 12 toilet tissue rolls. Plastic outer wrap.
rolls
1 roll Paper wrapped single toilet tissue roll.
4 Clear glass jar, paper label.
0.6 Paperboard sleeve, plastic blister pack, foil seal. 12 pieces.
288 Paperboard box, 24 aluminum cans.
120 6 PET plastic bottle, plastic ring holder.
32 Brown glass bottle, plastic cap.
100 Plastic PET bottle
72 6 Aluminum cans, plastic ring holder
144 12 aluminum cans, plastic outer wrap.
67 Plastic PET bottle
48 6 clear glass bottles, paperboard carton.
20 PET plastic bottle, plastic cap.
144 12 aluminum cans, paperboard box.
0.5 Plastic/foil/paper laminate pouch
22.7 Vacuum packed plastic pouch sealed with vertical fin back seal.
23 .9 Inner plastic wrap with outer wax coating
48 Paperboard carton with individual plastic wrapped cheese. 4 outer
plastic wraps.
12 Plastic individual cheese wrappers with outer plastic wrap.
8 Plastic recloseable bag
8 Plastic pouch with vertical fin back seal. Paperboard and paper
backing.
8 LDPE recloseable bag with internal plastic wrap.
8 HDPE cup with HDPE lid. Plastic film seal.
10 Ceramic cannister, rubber gasket, metal handle. Plastic internal
cheese wrap.
14 PP cup with recloseable lid. Plastic film seal.
10 Plastic sealed pouch LDPE
6 Paperboard outer carton, plastic pouch.
7 Plastic recloseable pouch
8 LDPE recloseable bag, plastic inner wrap.
64 HDPE 1/2 gallon plastic jug
128 HDPE plastic gallon jug

 

172

 

 

163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182

183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199

200
201

Milk
Milk
Milk
Milk
Margarine
Margarine
Margarine
Margarine
Eggs
Eggs
Cleaner
Eggs
Cleaner
Dish Soap
Dish Soap
Dish Soap
Dish Soap
Dish Soap
Dish Soap
Paper
Towel
Paper
Towel
Paper
Towel
Dinners

Dinners

Dinners
Dinners
Dinners
Dinners
Dinners
Dinners
Dinners
Tomato
Product
Tomato
Product
Tomato
Product
Tomato
Product
Meat

Meat

Meat
Meat

64
32
8
l6
l6
l6
12
32
21
21
32
42
35
42
14.7
42.7
28
50
85
3 rolls

1 roll
8 rolls
26
18.2
28
7.25
15
14
12.15
10
14.5
64
20
40
28
34
17.5

44.7
22.5

Paperboard laminated gable-top carton
Paperboard laminated gable-top carton
Paperboard laminated gable-top carton

PET bottle

Paperboard carton, 2 Polypropylene cups, 2 plastic lids.
Paperboard carton, 4 aluminum wrappers.
HDPE bottle with foil seal

HDPE tub, LDPE plastic lid.

Polystryrene foam carton

Paper molded carton

HDPE bottle with recloseable cap

Paper molded carton, plastic outer wrap.
HDPE bottle with recloseable cap

PET bottle, recloseable cap

PET bottle, recloseable cap

HDPE bottle, recloseable cap

HDPE bottle, recloseable cap

Paperboard box with foil/plastic outer label.
HDPE plastic bottle

3 Paper towel rolls. LDPE plastic outer wrap.

1 Paper towel roll. LDPE plastic outer wrap.

8 Paper towlel rolls. 8 LDPE plastic wraps. LDPE plastic outer
wrap.

Paperboard carton, PS tray, Paper/plastic baking tray. F oil/plastic
pouch, plastic pouch, outer plastic wrap.

Outer plastic fin sealed pouch. Inner plastic pouch, inner plastic
mesh pouch.

Paperboard outer carton, plastic/foil laminate pouch

Paperboard outer carton, plastic/foil laminate pouch

Paperboard outer carton, plastic/foil laminate pouch
Paperboard outer carton, plastic/foil laminate pouch
Paperboard outer carton, plastic film seal, inner PET tray.
Paperboard outer carton, plastic tray, plastic film seal.

3 piece can with paper label

PET bottle, plastic/foil seal. PP cap.

PET bottle, plastic/foil seal. PP cap.
Plastic bottle, plastic/foil seal. PP cap.
Plastic bottle, plastic/foil seal. PP cap.

Plastic film laminated expanded polystyrene (EPS) tray. Plastic
film seal.

Plastic film laminated expanded polystyrene (EPS) tray. Plastic
film seal.

Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) tray, plastic outer wrap.

Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) tray, plastic outer wrap.

"13

h‘J‘E‘I- ‘4. ‘. _ felt-I -) Ia met '12. a '.

 

 

173

 

202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
21 l
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230

23 l
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250

Poultry
Poultry
Soup
Soup
Soup
Soup
Soup
Soup
Soup
Yogurt
Yogurt
Yogurt
Fruit
Fruit
Fruit
Fruit
Fruit
Vegetables
Vegetables
Fruit
Vegetables
Vegetables
Vegetables
Vegetables
Toothpaste
Toothpaste
Toothpaste
Toothpaste
Toothpaste

Toothpaste
Shampoo
Shampoo
Shampoo
Shampoo
Ice Cream
Ice Cream
Ice Cream
Ice Cream
Ice Cream
Tuna Fish
Tuna Fish

Beer
Beer
Beer
Beer
Beer
Beer
Cleaner
Cleaner

59
73.2
1.9
4.4
1.5
33.1
10.5
19
24
32

26.4
64
26
15
29
16
48
l6
l6
16

14.5

8.25

3.5
15
15

6.8

90
42
39
48
30

8.25
150
300
150
40
72
72
27
27

LDPE bag.

Polystyrene tray, plastic label. Plastic outer wrap.
PB box,4 plastic/foil/paper laminate pouches.
Paper/foil/plastic laminate pouch.
Paperboard cup, plastic/paper laminate seal.
Paperboard box, 2 HDPE plastic trays. 2 Plastic film seals.
2 piece steel can, paper label.

3 piece steel can, paper label

Clear glass jar with metal lug cap.
Polypropylene cup, plasti lid, foil seal.
Polypropylene cup, Polystyrene lid, foil seal.
6 PP plastic cups, plastic/foil seals.

Plastic mesh bag. Plastic label.

Clear glassjar. Metal lug cap

3 piece metal can. Paper label.

3 piece metal can. Paper label.

4 3-piece steel cans, paperboard carton, 4 paper labels.
LDPE bag

LDPE bag

HDPE plastic bag "
LDPE lap sealed bag

2-piece steel can. Paper label.

3-piece steel can. Paper label

Paperboard box, foil/paper/plastic wrap.

Paperboard box, plastic/foil tube, recloseable cap.

Paperboard box, plastic/foil tube, recloseable cap.

Paperboard box, plastic/foil tube, relcoseable cap.

Plastic self-standing laminate tube. Flip-top cap, foil seal.

Plastic self—standing plastic tube. Foil/plastic inner pouch. Plastic

seal.

Paperboard box, 2-piece plastic pump.

HDPE container

PET container

HDPE container

HDPE container

HDPE plastic tub, plastic lid

Laminated Paperboard container.

Laminated paperboard container, LDPE plastic lid.

Laminated paperboard container, paperboard lid, plastic window.
Laminated Paperboard cup, plastic lid.

2-piece steel can, paper label. .

Paperboard carton, 3 2-piece steel cans, 3 paper labels.

Paperboard box with 12 aluminum cans

Paperboard box with 24 aluminum cans

Corrugated box with 12 amber glass bottles

Amber glass bottle

6 aluminum cans. Plastic ring holder.

6 amber long neck glass bottles. Paperboard carton.

PET plastic bottle with recloseable cap

Paperboard laminate box

—A

 

 

174

 

251 Milk 32 HDPE plastic bottle. Plastic shrinkwrap label.

252 Milk 48 6 HDPE plastic bottle. 6 plastic shrinkwrap labels. Plastic outer
wrap.
253 Yogurt 6 Polystyrene tray, plastic/foil laminant seal.

254 Yogurt 24 6 PP plastic cups, 6 plastic/paper seals, paperboard carton.

255 Tuna Fish 12 2-piece steel can, paper label

256 Tuna Fish 8.25 Paperboard carton, 3 2-piece steel cans, 3 PET plastic containers, 3
paper labels, 3 plastic seals.

257 Margarine l6 Paperboard carton, 4 paper wrappers.

258 Eggs 42 Expanded polystyrene (EPS) carton, outer plastic wrap.

259 Drink Mix 0.16 Plastic/foil/paper laminate pouch

260 Milk 64 LDPE plastic pouch

 

* The numbers 49, 68, 87, 95, 103,131,132 and 145 were left out of this study for various reasons.

 

 

 

175

Appendix C

Additional Product Category Data Tables

C.l Baby Food Product Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

Product Product Brand Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calories/
Number Category Name Weight, g Weight, 02 Weight. g Container. size, 100 cal Serving Size. g Serving
100 cal basis basis
69 Baby Food Gerber 454 16 459.62 18.385 25.000 30 15 60
459.62 18.385 25.000 30 60
459.62 18.385 25.000 30 60
70 Baby Food Gerber 227 8 223.38 8.935 25.000 15 15 60
223.38 8.935 25.000 15 60
223.38 8.935 25.000 15 60
133 Baby Food Gerber 1 13 4 106.7 6.097 17.500 8 14 80
106.7 6.097 17.500 8 80
106.7 6.097 17.500 8 80
146 Baby Food Gerber 14 0.5 15.96 0.684 23.333 1 14 60
15.96 0.684 23.333 1 60
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness. Volume Description
Number Weight. g cm2 cm Material. cm3
69 TOTAL 75.158 2541.65 0.064 95.448 Paperboard box, plastic outer
wrap
PB box 72.388 1508.45 0.0617 93.071
Plastic outer wrap 2.770 1033.20 0.0023 2.376
70 TOTAL 44.865 1715.840 0.051 51.202 Paperboard box, plastic outer
wrap
PB box 42.375 1031.84 0.0477 49.219
Plastic outer wrap 2.490 684.00 0.0029 1.984
133 TOTAL 78.450 190.96 0.3765 55.840 Clear glass jar, metal lug cap
Clear glass jar 71.740 156.07 0.3524 54.999
Metal lid 6.710 34.89 0.0241 0.841
146 TOTAL 2.350 223.520 0.011 2.347 Plastic/paper/foil laminate
pouch
Plastic/foil laminate 2.350 223.52 0.0105 2.347
pouch
C.2 Baking Mix Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calories/
Number Category Weight, g Weight, 02 Weight, g Container, size, 100 Serving Size, g Serving
100 cal basis cal basis
40 Baking Mix Bob's Red 679 24 684.34 40.438 16.923 30 22 130
Mill
684.34 40.438 16.923 30 130
41 Baking Mix Jiffy 240 8.5 246.03 10.359 23.750 6 38 160
246.03 10.359 23.750 6 160
246.03 10.359 23.750 6 160
42 Baking Mix Krusteaz 496 17.5 496.3 15.736 31.538 11 41 130
496.3 15.736 31.538 11 130

 

176

 

 

 

 

 

496.3 15.736 31.538 11 130
496.3 15.736 31.538 11 130
43 Baking Mix Aunt 2260 80 2263.18 72.422 31.250 91 25 80
Jemima
2263.18 72.422 31.250 91 80
44 Baking Mix Gold 184 6.5 193.67 6.872 28.182 6 31 110
Medal
193.67 6.872 28.182 6 110
Product Material Packaging Surface Area. cm2 Thickness, Volume Material, Description
Number Weight. g cm cm3
40 TOTAL 7.840 181.600 0.005 0.908 Plastic pillow pouch
Plastic pouch 7.840 181.60 0.0050 0.908
41 TOTAL 21.120 985.770 0.052 24.440 Paperboard box,
PB box 17.470 459.02 0.0459 21.069 Waxed paper bag
Paper(waxed) 3.650 526.75 0.0064 3.371
bag
42 TOTAL 71.060 1800.39 0.1120 61.377 Paperboard box,
PB box 37.290 862.46 0.0537 46.314 Plastic pillow pouch
2-piece Steel 29.060 188.01 0.0510 9.589 2-piece steel can
Can
Pillow pouch 4.710 749.92 0.0073 5.474
43 TOTAL 22.430 1543.160 0.012 19.135 Paper bag
Paper bag 22.430 1543.16 0.0124 19.135
44 TOTAL 6.850 530.860 0.01 1 5.946 Plastic/paper laminate
bag
Plastic bag 6.850 530.86 0.01 12 5.946
C .3 Beer Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calorie
Number Category Weight, Weight, Weight, Weight, container, Size Serving Size, ml per
ml fl.oz. ml fl.oz. 100 cal. serving
Basis
243 Beer Bud Light 4260 150 4298 145.32 11.86 362.24 12 355 98
4298 145.32 1 1.86 362.24 12 355 98
4298 145.32 11.86 362.24 12 355 98
244 Beer Bud Light 8520 300 8631 291.81 23.83 362.24 24 355 98
8631 291.81 23.83 362.24 24 355 98
8631 291.81 23.83 362.24 24 355 98
245 Beer Coors 4260 150 4352 147.14 12.01 362.24 12 355 98
Light
4352 147.14 12.01 362.24 12 355 98
4352 147.14 12.01 362.24 12 355 98
246 Beer Bud Light 1183 40 1 197 40.47 3.30 362.24 3 355 98
1197 40.47 3.30 362.24 3 355 98
247 Beer Bud Light 2130 72 2146 72.56 5.92 362.24 6 355 98
2146 72.56 5.92 362.24 6 355 98
2146 72.56 5.92 362.24 6 355 98
248 Beer Bud Light 2130 72 2289 77.39 6.32 362.24 6 355 98
2289 77.39 6.32 362.24 6 355 98
2289 77.39 6.32 362.24 6 355 98

 

177

 

 

 

 

 

Product Material Packaging Surface Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight. g Area. cm2 cm Material,
cm3
243 TOTAL 377.50 9970.26 0.07 289.42 Paperboard box with 12
PB box 200.56 4023.120 0.054 218.053 aluminum cans
12 aluminum cans 176.94 5947.140 0.012 71.366
244 TOTAL 756.17 19908.41 0.07 606.80 Paperboard box with 24
PB box 398.76 7895.480 0.059 465.044 aluminum cans
24 aluminum cans 357.41 12012.930 0.012 141.753
245 TOTAL 2235.78 3926.59 0.05 1347.69 Corrugated box with 12
Corrugated box 173.22 3926.590 0.054 212.036 amber glass bottles
12 amber glass 2062.56 1 135.650
bottles
246 TOTAL 398.79 0.00 0.00 368.75 Amber glass bottle
Amber Glass bottle 398.79 368.750
247 TOTAL 96.00 3164.01 0.04 46.20 6 aluminum cans. Plastic
6 aluminum cans 92.35 3081.360 0.014 43.755 ring holder
plastic ring holder 3.65 82.650 0.030 2.446
248 TOTAL 1606.19 1526.35 0.04 890.22 6 amber long neck glass
6 amber glass bottle 1548.23 827.640 bottles. Paperboard carton
PB carton 57.96 1526.350 0.041 62.580
C.4 Bread Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calories/
Number Category Weight, g Weight, 02 Weight. g Container, size, 100 Serving Size, g Serving
100 cal basis cal basis
77 Bread Lumber 567 20 592.2 16.920 35.000 20 28 80
Jack
592.2 16.920 35.000 20 80
78 Bread Pepperidge 454 16 458.76 11.214 40.909 10 45 1 10
Farms 458.76 1 1.214 40.909 10 110
458.76 11.214 40.909 10 110
79 Bread Pepperidge 454 16 450.72 12.677 35.556 14 32 90
Farms 450.72 12.677 35.556 14 90
450.72 12.677 35.556 14 90
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight. g cm2 cm Material. cm3
77 TOTAL 9.970 2375.900 0.005 10.692 LDPE outer bag
LDPE bag 9.970 2375.90 0.0045 10.692
78 TOTAL 6.760 2732.260 0.004 5.111 LDPE outer bag, inner plastic
wrap
LDPE outer bag 4.180 1607.84 0.0022 3.537
Inner plastic wrap 2.580 1124.42 0.0014 1.574
79 TOTAL 8.020 2968.88 0.0048 7.125 LDPE outer bag, inner plastic
wrap
LDPE outer bag 4.430 1730.48 0.0024 4.153
Inner plastic wrap 3.590 1238.40 0.0024 2.972

 

178

 

 

C.5 Candy Product Group

 

 

 

 

Product Product Brand Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calories/
Number Category Name Weight, g Weight, 02 Weight, g Container, size, 100 cal Serving Size. g Serving
100 cal basis basis
71 Candy Reese's 391 13.8 406.11 22.694 17.895 12 34 190
406.1 1 22.694 17.895 12 190
406.1 1 22.694 17.895 12 190
406.1 1 22.694 17.895 12 190
406.1 1 22.694 17.895 12 190
72 Candy Reese's 150 5.3 151.62 8.164 18.571 4 39 210
151.62 8.164 18.571 4 210
151.62 8.164 18.571 4 210
151.62 8.164 18.571 4 210 '3‘“?
73 Candy Reese's 79 2.8 79.81 4.243 18.810 1 79 420
79.81 4.243 18.810 1 420 ’
79.81 4.243 18.810 1 420 _
79.81 4.243 18.810 1 420 3'
74 Candy Reese's 45 1.5 45.08 2.504 18.000 1 45 250 ,3
45.08 2.504 18.000 1 250 ‘
45.08 2.504 18.000 1 250
45.08 2.504 18.000 1 250
75 Candy Reese's 170 6 172.91 9.663 17.895 5 34 190 "'2
172.91 9.663 17.895 5 190
172.91 9.663 17.895 5 190
172.91 9.663 17.895 5 190
172.91 9.663 17.895 5 190
172.91 9.663 17.895 5 190
76 Candy Reese's 226 8 226.4 12.191 18.571 6 39 210
226.4 12.191 18.571 6 210
226.4 12.19] 18.571 6 210
226.4 12.191 18.571 6 210
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight, g cm2 cm Material, cm3
71 TOTAL 33.540 6869.390 0.083 81.282 Plastic outer bag, individual
Plastic outer bag 9.180 1207.68 0.0074 8.937 plastic wrapped candy. Candy
Plastic candy 8.790 4141.20 0.0049 20.292 contained in paper cup, paperboard
wrap
PB backing 12.030 699.84 0.0460 32.193 tray
Paper cup 3.540 820.67 0.0242 19.860
72 TOTAL 9.720 1985.810 0.013 8.661 Plastic outer bag, individual
Plastic outer bag 3.580 552.00 0.0059 3.257 foil wrapped candies. Candy
foil wrapper 3.560 992.80 0.0038 3.773 contained in paper cup
paper cup 2.580 441.01 0.0037 1.632
73 TOTAL 7.830 749.610 0.036 7.455 Plastic outer wrapping, candy
Plastic outer wrap 1.830 433.44 0.0055 2.384 contained inside paper cup,
PB tray 3.140 170.98 0.0255 4.360 paperboard tray
Paper cup 2.860 145.19 0.0049 0.71 l
74 TOTAL 3.120 434.430 0.032 3.655 Plastic outer wrap, plastic candy
Plastic outer wrap 1.120 263.16 0.0045 1.184 wrap, paper cup, paperboard
PB tray 1.630 92.13 0.0239 2.202 backing tray
Paper cup 0.370 79.14 0.0034 0.269
75 TOTAL 32.620 3848.060 0.090 45.395 Plastic outer bag, paperboard
Plastic outer bag 2.850 976.08 0.0038 3.709 tray. Plastic candy wrap,

 

179

 

 

 

paperboard

 

 

PB tray 17.190 477.40 0.0523 24.968 backing, paper cups
PB backing 5.220 291.60 0.0255 7.436 paper cups
Paper cup 1.660 362.98 0.0040 1.452
Plastic candy 5.700 1740.00 0.0045 7.830
wrap
76 TOTAL 15.400 2683.630 0.011 8.234 Plastic outer bag, foil wrapper,
Plastic outer bag 4.000 597.84 0.0057 3.408 paper cup
Foil wrapping 5.480 1449.00 0.0021 3.043
Paper cup 5.920 636.79 0.0028 1.783
C.6 Cereal Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calories/
Number Category Weight, g Weight, 02 Weight. g Container, size, 100 Serving Size, g Serving
100 cal basis cal basis
1 Cereal Quaker Oats 510 18 519.37 19.476 26.667 13 40 150
519.37 19.476 26.667 13 150
519.37 19.476 26.667 13 150
519.37 19.476 26.667 13 150
519.37 19.476 26.667 13 150
2 Cereal Quaker Oats 1 190 42 1218.45 45.692 26.667 30 40 150
1218.45 45.692 26.667 30 150
1218.45 45.692 26.667 30 150
1218.45 45.692 26.667 30 150
1218.45 45.692 26.667 30 150
1218.45 45.692 26.667 30 150
1218.45 45.692 26.667 12 150
3 Cereal Quaker 336 1 1.08 376.06 13.431 28.000 12 28 100
Instant Oats
376.06 13.43] 28.000 12 100
376.06 13.431 28.000 12 100
25 Cereal Meijer Quick 1190 42 1233.3 44.272 27.857 31 39 140
Oats
1233.3 44.272 27.857 31 140
1233.3 44.272 27.857 31 140
1233.3 44.272 27.857 31 140
1233.3 44.272 27.857 31 140
1233.3 44.272 27.857 31 140
26 Cereal Meijer Quick 510 18 517.55 18.579 27.857 13 39 140
Oats
517.55 18.579 27.857 13 140
517.55 18.579 27.857 13 140
517.55 18.579 27.857 13 140
517.55 18.579 27.857 13 140
4 Cereal Cheerios 283 10 284.31 10.425 27.273 9 30 110
284.31 10.425 27.273 9 1 10
284.31 10.425 27.273 9 1 10
5 Cereal Cheerios 567 11b 402 567.87 20.822 27.273 19 30 110
567.87 20.822 27.273 19 1 10
567.87 20.822 27.273 19 1 10
6 Cereal Kroger 283 10 285.94 10.484 27.273 9 30 110
Toasted Oats
285.94 10.484 27.273 9 1 10
7 Cereal General Mills 255.86 9.806 26.092 8 227 870

 

180

‘- h a.“ .

 

57’.

 

 

 

 

 

255.86 9.806 26.092 8 227 870
Cheerios 21 22.67 0.864 26.250 8 21 80
22.67 0.864 26.250 8 21 80
Frosted 29 29.51 1.1 19 26.364 8 29 1 10
Cheerios
29.51 1.119 26.364 8 29 110
French Toast 30 35.43 1.417 25.000 8 30 120
35.43 1.417 25.000 8 30 120
Trix 27 26.48 0.981 27.000 8 27 100
26.48 0.981 27.000 8 27 100
Honey 36 44.8 1.742 25.714 8 36 140
Clusters
44.8 1.742 25.714 8 36 140
Honey 28 30.19 1.186 25.455 8 28 110
Cheerios
30.19 1.186 25.455 8 28 110
Cinn. Streusel 27 36.38 1.347 27.000 8 27 100
36.38 1.347 27.000 8 27 100
Lucky 29 30.4 1.153 26.364 8 29 110
Charms
30.4 1.153 26.364 8 29 110
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight. g cm2 cm Material, cm3
1 TOTAL 61.790 938.09 0.4506 206.783 Paperboard tube, paper tube bottom
PB can 51.540 722.36 0.2733 197.420 plastic lid, plastic film tamper
PB lid 2.010 87.40 0.0349 3.050 evident seal.
Plastic lid 7.410 41.93 0.1347 5.648
Plastic film 0.830 86.40 0.0077 0.665
2 TOTAL 108.550 1607.49 0.4167 135.576 Paperboard tube, paper tube bottom
Paper top 3.360 151.74 0.0315 4.780 plastic lid, film seal, plastic lid ring,
Plastic lid ring 3.500 13.91 0.0720 1.002 paper seal, adhesive.
Paper seal 2.800 128.68 0.0315 4.053
Plastic seal 6.540 28.63 0.1072 3.069
ring
adhesive 3.190 22.56 0.0787 1.775
PB can 89.160 1261.97 0.0958 120.897
3 TOTAL 44.480 1510.07 0.0521 76.535 Paperboard carton, 12 paper/plastic
PB box 1.420 1250.07 0.0460 57.503 laminate pouches.
plastic packet 43.060 260.00 0.0061 19.032
25 TOTAL 1 19.836 1513.44 0.3774 140.696 Paperboard tube, paper bottom,
Plastic ring 3.980 8.17 0.0815 0.666 plastic lid, plastic lid ring, plastic
Inner lid 7.660 1 16.83 0.0559 6.531 seal, adhesive
adhesive 3 .426 23.90 0.0762 1.821
Outer lid 10.410 176.63 0.0622 10.986
PB can 94.360 1187.91 0.1016 120.692
26 TOTAL 68.360 884.96 0.3010 76.365 Paperboard tube, paper bottom,
lst seal 6.230 83.32 0.0587 4.891 plastic lid, plastic lid ring, plastic
2nd seal 5.350 70.88 0.0635 4.501 seal, adhesive
plastic ring 2.490 8.19 0.0871 0.713
paper tube 54.290 722.57 0.0917 66.260
4 TOTAL 84.490 3663.19 0.1947 104.829 Paperboard box, plastic inner pouch
PB box 74.630 1794.79 0.0506 90.816 with vertical fin back seal
plasic bag 9.860 1868.40 0.0075 14.013

 

181

 

 

 

5 TOTAL 148.990 5479.920 0.068 186.717 Paperboard box, plastic inner pouch
Pb box 134.670 2732.22 0.0614 167.758 with vertical fin back seal
plastic bag 14.320 2747.70 0.0069 18.959
6 TOTAL 6.540 3253.12 0.0073 23.748 Plastic LDPE bag, vertical fin back
plastic bag 6.540 3253.12 0.0073 23.748 seal
7 TOTAL 139.790 7317.50 0.3983 160.908 8 paperboard cartons, 8 plastic inner
Plastic outer 3.590 1454.38 0.0023 3.345 pouches with vertical fin back seals,
PB box 13.650 416.49 0.0403 16.785 plastic outer wrap.
Plastic bag 3.150 316.40 0.0092 2.91 1
box 14.260 416.49 0.0403 16.785
bag 3.120 316.40 0.0092 2.91 1
box 13.640 416.49 0.0403 16.785
bag 3.080 316.40 0.0092 2.91 1
box 13.850 416.49 0.0403 16.785
bag 3.330 316.40 0.0092 2.911
box 13.900 416.49 0.0403 16.785
bag 3.250 316.40 0.0092 2.91 1
box 14.060 416.49 0.0403 16.785
bag 3.110 316.40 0.0092 2.91 1
box 13.800 416.49 0.0403 16.785
bag 3.150 316.40 0.0092 2.911
box 13.910 416.49 0.0403 16.785
bag 2.940 316.40 0.0092 2.91 1
C7 Cheese Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving size Manufacturer Serving Calories!
Number Category Weight. g Weight, Weight. g container. 100 cal Servings Size, g Serving
oz 100 cal basis basis
147 Cheese Kroger 644 22.7 659 25.889 25.455 23 28 110
659 25.889 25.455 23 28 l 10
148 Cheese Land O' 680 23.9 698 27.421 25.455 24 28 1 10
Lakes
698 27.421 25.455 24 28 1 10
698 27.421 25.455 24 28 l 10
149 Cheese Kroger 1360 48 1374 43.389 31.667 72 19 60
1374 43.389 31.667 72 19 60
1374 43.3 89 31.667 72 19 60
1374 43.3 89 31.667 72 19 60
150 Cheese Krafl 340 12 344 11.467 30.000 16 21 70
344 1 1.467 30.000 16 21 70
344 1 1.467 30.000 16 21 70
151 Cheese Kraft 227 8 243 9.720 25.000 8 30 120
243 9.720 25 .000 8 30 120
152 Cheese Alpine 240 8 244 6.100 40.000 9 28 70
Lace
244 6.100 40.000 9 28 70
244 6.100 40.000 9 28 70
244 6.100 40.000 9 28 70
153 Cheese Kroger 231 8 233 9.154 25.455 8 28 1 10
Deli 233 9.154 25.455 8 28 110
233 9.154 25.455 8 28 110
154 Cheese Kaukauna 227 8 235 7.554 31.1 11 8 28 90
235 7.554 31.111 8 28 90
235 7.554 31.111 8 28 90
235 7.554 31.111 8 28 90

 

182

 

 

 

 

 

155 Cheese Win 284 10 298 9.579 31.1 11 10 28 90
Schuler’s
298 9.579 31.111 10 28 90
298 9.579 31.111 10 28 90
298 9.579 31.111 10 28 90
298 9.579 31.111 10 28 90
156 Cheese Win 397 14 408 8.743 46.667 14 28 60
Schuler’s
408 8.743 46.667 14 28 60
408 8.743 46.667 14 28 60
408 8.743 46.667 14 28 60
Product Material Packaging Surface Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight, g Area, cm2 cm “4316113141113
147 TOTAL 7.41 715.36 0.01 4.94 Vacuum sealed plastic pouch
Plastic bag 7.41 715.360 0.007 4.936 Fin sealed 3-sided pouch
148 TOTAL 49.52 954.05 0.13 60.62 Inner plastic wrap with outer
Wax 44.20 479.650 0.125 59.764 wax coating
Plastic wrap 5.32 474.400 0.002 0.854
149 TOTAL 81.25 17544.47 0.05 99.92 Paperboard carton with
PB carton 38.18 1073.140 0.047 50.867 individual plastic wrapped
Plastic cheese wrap 37.43 14647.680 0.003 43.943 cheese. 4 outer plastic
Plastic outer wrap 5.64 1823.650 0.003 5.106 wrappings
150 TOTAL 9.90 373 1.36 0.01 1 1.43 Plastic individual cheese
Plastic cheese wrap 8.32 3255.040 0.003 9.765 wrappings with outer plastic
Plastic outer wrap 1.58 476.320 0.004 1.667 wrap
151 TOTAL 8.61 997.59 0.01 8.18 Plastic recloseable bag
Plastic pouch 8.61 997.590 0.008 8.180
152 TOTAL 17.40 1540.30 0.07 18.04 Plastic fin sealed pouch.
Plastic outer wrap 6.08 678.370 0.005 3.188 Paperboard backing, paper
Paper backing 4.14 672.970 0.006 4.172 cheese backing.
PB backing 7.18 188.960 0.057 10.676
153 TOTAL 5.64 1666.14 0.01 6.37 LDPE recloseable bag with
Plastic bag 4.94 1 122.100 0.005 5.611 plastic wrap sheet.
Plastic inner wrap 0.70 544.040 0.001 0.762
154 TOTAL 13.75 297.74 0.12 14.18 HDPE cup with recloseable
Plastic cup 9.97 177.120 0.061 10.787 HDPE lid. Plastic seal.
plastic lid 3.46 57.540 0.053 3.050
Plastic film 0.32 63.080 0.006 0.347
155 TOTAL 550.80 1615.22 1.06 295.42 Ceramic cannister with
Ceramic jar 519.94 491.630 0.580 285.195 rubber gasket and metal
Plastic wrap 4.00 1095.930 0.004 4.493 handle. Plastic cheese wrap
Rubber gasket 4.39 18.960 0.156 2.952 inside
Metal handle 22.47 8.700 0.320 2.784
156 TOTAL 24.19 578.96 0. 12 26.50 PP cup with recloseable lid.
Plastic tub 13.16 282.670 0.052 14.784 Plastic film seal
Plastic lid 10.38 182.900 0.060 1 1.047
Plastic film 0.65 1 13.390 0.006 0.669

 

183

 

IF”;

 

 

C.8 Chip Product Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Product Product Brand Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calories/
Number Category Name Weight.g Weight.oz Weight,g Container, size.100 cal Serving Size.g Serving
100 cal basis basis
35 Potato Jays 170 6 172.33 9.232 18.667 6 28 150
Chips
172.33 9.232 18.667 6 150
36 Potato Lays 28.3 1 30.45 1.614 18.867 1 28.3 150
Chips
30.45 1.614 18.867 1 150
37 Potato Ruffles 396.9 14 397.8 22.731 17.500 14 28 160
Chips
397.8 22.731 17.500 14 160
38 Potato Pringles 198 7 198.95 11.369 17.500 7 28 160
Chips
198.95 11.369 17.500 7 160
198.95 11.369 17.500 7 160
198.95 11.369 17.500 7 160
39 Potato Pringles 397 14 390.75 22.329 17.500 14 28 160
Chips
390.75 22.329 17.500 14 160
390.75 22.329 17.500 14 160
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight, g cm2 cm Material, cm3
35 TOTAL 9.000 1482.480 0.007 10.229 Plastic/Paper laminate bag
Plastic/paper 9.000 1482.48 0.0069 10.229
laminate bag
36 TOTAL 2.210 471.040 0.006 2.591 Plastic/paper laminate bag
Plastic/paper 2.210 471.04 0.0055 2.591
laminate bag
37 TOTAL 13.470 2435.280 0.006 15.586 Plastic/paper laminate bag
Plastic/paper 13.470 2435.28 0.0064 15.586
laminate bag
38 TOTAL 54.121 1046.140 0.164 74.483 Paperboard tube, metal bottom,
PB tube w/ metal 49.150 653.85 0.0907 59.304 plastic HDPE recloseable lid,
bottom paper/
Plastic Lid 4.321 210.83 0.0627 13.219 foil laminate seal
Foil lid 0.650 181.46 0.0108 1.960
39 TOTAL 66.450 3045.060 0.056 74.118 Paperboard box,2foil bags
PB box 50.960 1227.36 0.0478 58.668
Foil bags 15.490 1817.70 0.0085 15.450
C.9 Cleaner Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Manufacturer Serving
Number Category Weight. m1 Weighefl Weight. m1 container, 1/4 Use Size, ml
02 cupbasis
173 Cleaner Mop&Glo 946 32 958 16.21 16 59
958 16.21 16 59
175 Cleaner Lysol 1034 35 1049 17.75 17 59
1049 17.75 17 59
249 Cleaner Future 799 27 812 13 .74 l 3 59
812 13.74 13 59

 

184

 

Powder

 

 

 

 

 

g 02 g 1/4 cup.g
250 Cleaner Spic&Span 765 27 774 25.80 24 30
774 25.80 24 30
Product Material Packaging Surface Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight,g Area. cm2 cm material.cm3
173 TOTAL 59.45 605.31 0.10 58.90 HDPE bottle with recloseable
Plastic bottle 59.45 605.310 0.097 58.897 cap
175 TOTAL 73.26 748.21 0.11 82.08 HDPE bottle with recloseable
Plastic bottle 73.26 748.210 0.110 82.079 screw cap
249 TOTAL 51.33 725.19 0.06 45.18 PET plastic bottle with
Plastic PET bottle 51.33 725.190 0.062 45.179 recloseable cap
Powder
250 TOTAL 70.37 1384.07 0.06 87.20 Paperboard laminate box
PB laminated box 70.37 1384.070 0.063 87.196
C. 10 Cookie Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calories/
Number Category Weight,gWeight,oz Weigth Container, size,100 Serving Size,g Serving
100 cal basis cal basis
17 Cookies Nabisco Chips 510 18 513.55 25.678 20.000 16 32 160
Ahoy!
513.55 25.678 20.000 16 160
513.55 25.678 20.000 16 160
18 Cookies Pepperidge 206 7.25 211.17 10.559 20.000 8 26 130
Farm
211.17 10.559 20.000 8 130
211.17 10.559 20.000 8 130
211.17 10.559 20.000 8 130
19 Cookies Archway 283 10 326.17 16.309 20.000 12 28 140
376.06 16.309 20.000 12 140
376.06 16.309 20.000 12 140
20 Cookies Famous Amos 453 16 455.79 19.751 23.077 16 30 130
455.79 19.75] 23.077 16 130
455.79 19.751 23.007 16 130
21 Cookies Kroger 510 18 568.75 29.418 19.333 24 29 150
568.75 29.418 19.333 24 150
568.75 29.418 19.333 24 150
568.75 29.418 19.333 24 150
22 Cookies Keebler E.L. 425 15 448.85 21.545 20.833 17 25 120
Fudge
448.85 21.545 20.833 17 120
448.85 21.545 20.833 17 120
23 Cookies Nabisco Chips 78 2.75 81.67 3.351 24.375 2 39 160
Ahoy!
81.67 3.351 24.375 2 160
24 Cookies Nabisco Chips 40 1.4 41.9 2.095 20.000 1 40 200
Ahoy!
41.9 2.095 20.000 1 200
41.9 2.095 20.000 1 200
27 Cookies Pepperidge 180 6.4 190.04 6.335 30.000 10 18 60
Farms

 

185

 

 

 

 

 

190.04 6.335 30.000 10 60
190.04 6.335 30.000 10 60
190.04 6.335 30.000 10 60
28 Cookies Nabisco Chips 680 22 751.88 37.594 20.000 21 32 160
Ahoy!
751.88 37.594 20.000 21 160
751 .88 37.594 20.000 21 160
29 Cookies Goff‘s 510 18 544.8 28.179 19.333 12 29 150
544.8 28.180 19.333 12 150
Product Material Packaging Surface Area. Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight. g cm2 cm Material. cm3
17 TOTAL 23.090 2266.96 0.052 62.269 Paper/foil/plastic laminate bag,
Paper/foil/plastic bag 16.180 1540.40 0.0300 46.212 Corrugated paper tray
Corrugated paper tray 6.910 726.56 0.0221 16.057
18 TOTAL 24.820 1749.760 0.134 87.460 Paper/foil/plastic laminate bag
Paper/plastic/foil bag 20.940 1007.52 0.0754 75.967 top gusseted only. 2 paper cups,
Paper cups 2.220 679.24 0.0127 8.626 1 paperboard backing tray.
PB cover 1.660 63.00 0.0455 2.867
19 TOTAL 18.1 10 1232.79 0.0457 22.865 Paperboard tray, plastic outer
wrap.
PB box 13.990 453.20 0.0391 17.720
Plastic outer wrap 4.120 779.59 0.0066 5.145
20 TOTAL 74.949 2888.24 0.070 106.796 Paperboard box,
PB box 68.740 1568.04 0.0559 87.653 Plastic/foil laminate inner bag
Plastic/Foil inner bag 6.209 1320.20 0.0145 19.143
21 TOTAL 13.600 2608.100 0.262 142.879 Expanded polystyrene tray,
plastic
PS tray 6.830 513.36 0.2450 125.768 outer wrap, 2 adhesive labels
Plastic wrap 5.380 1984.50 0.0081 16.074
Adhesive label 1.390 1 10.24 0.0094 1.036
22 TOTAL 23.930 2004.150 0.096 63.413 Polystyrene tray,
EPS tray 16.340 622.45 0.0910 56.643 Plastic outer wrap
Plastic outer wrap 7.590 1381.70 0.0049 6.770
23 TOTAL 1.350 340.800 0.004 1.431 Plastic/foil laminate pouch
Plastic/foil laminate 1.350 340.80 0.0042 1.431
pouch
24 TOTAL 3.650 488.000 0.037 7.133 Plastic/foil laminate pouch,
Plastic/foil laminate 1.240 323.00 0.0064 2.067 paperboard backing tray.
bag
PB tray 2.410 165.00 0.0307 5.066
27 TOTAL 51.920 2368.910 0.138 125.445 Gable-top paperboard box,
PB box 39.420 1072.26 0.0861 92.322 plastic/foil laminate bag,
Plastic/foil laminate 3.850 710.01 0.0236 16.756 polystyrene tray.
bag
PS tray 8.650 586.64 0.0279 16.367
28 TOTAL 95.620 4018.940 0.059 102.637 Paperboard box, 4 plastic inner
PB box 82.180 1718.46 0.0582 100.014 pouches.
Plastic bag 13.440 2300.48 0.001 1 2.623
29 TOTAL 22.610 0.000 0.041 77.616 Polystyrene container.
PS Container 22.610 0.00 0.0412 77 .616

 

186

C.11 Cracker Product Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calories/
Number Category Weight,gWeight.oz Weight,g Container, size, 100 Serving Size,g Serving
100 cal basis cal basis
30 Crackers Ritz 340 12 357.94 17.897 20.000 21 16 80
Nabisco 357.94 17.897 20.000 21 80
357.94 17.897 20.000 21 80
31 Crackers Meijers 454 16 478.61 19.144 25.000 30 15 60
Select
478.61 19.144 25.000 30 60
478.61 19.144 25.000 30 60
32 Crackers Ritz 454 16 475.35 23.768 20.000 28 16 80
Nabisco 475.35 23.768 20.000 28 140
475.35 23.768 20.000 28 140
33 Crackers Salerno 368 13 387.86 15.514 25.000 25 15 60
387.86 15.514 25.000 25 60
34 Crackers Shur-good 340 12 345.95 13.838 25.000 23 15 60
345.95 13.838 25.000 23 60
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight, g cm2 cm Material, cm3
30 TOTAL 57.170 2780.04 0.051 61.657 Paperboard box,
PB box 49.190 1172.64 0.0460 53.941 3plastic bags
Plastic bags 7.980 1607.40 0.0048 7.716
31 TOTAL 72.060 4222.340 0.055 84.631 Paperboard box,
PB box 61.310 1414.34 0.0507 76.005 4plastic bags
Plastic bag 10.750 2808.00 0.0047 8.626
32 TOTAL 75.020 3702.45 0.0593 94.975 Paperboard box,
PB box 63.370 1559.25 0.0550 85.759 4plastic bags
Plastic bags 11.650 2143.20 0.0043 9.216
33 TOTAL 18.580 1426.500 0.014 19.400 Paper/plastic laminate gussetted
bag
Paper/plastic 18.580 1426.50 0.0136 19.400
laminate bag
34 TOTAL 5.180 1253.000 0.004 4.761 Plastic bag
Plasticbag 5.180 1253.00 0.0038 4.761
C.12 Dinner Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Sewing Calories/
Number Category Weight,g Weight, Weight,g container, Size, 100 cal Serving Size,g Serving
oz 100 cal basis basis
185 Dinners Mallard's 737 26 756 10.32 73.23 3 227 310
Chicken
Stew
756 10.32 73.23 3 227 310
756 10.32 73.23 3 227 310
756 10.32 73.23 3 227 310
756 10.32 73.23 3 227 310
756 10.32 73.23 3 227 310
756 10.32 73.23 3 227 310
186 Dinners Progresso 515 18.2 536 8.19 65.48 2.5 203 310
Pasta
536 8.19 65.48 2.5 203 310
536 8.19 65.48 2.5 203 310

 

187

 

536 8.19 65.48 2.5 203 310

 

 

 

 

191 Dinners Healthy 344 12.15 358 3.33 107.50 1 344 320
Choice
Chicken
358 3.33 107.50 1 344 320
358 3.33 107.50 1 344 320
358 3.33 107.50 1 344 320
187 Dinners Kraft Mac 793 28 805 26.29 30.63 8 98 320
&Cheese
Dinner
805 26.29 30.63 8 98 320
805 26.29 30.63 8 98 320
188 Dinners Kraft Mac 206 7.25 215 7.99 26.92 3 70 260 ”,7—
&Cheese 5
215 7.99 26.92 3 70 260 '
215 7.99 26.92 3 70 260
189 Dinners Kraft Mac 420 15 429 15.93 26.92 6 70 260
&Cheese
429 15.93 26.92 6 70 260
429 15.93 26.92 6 70 260
190 Dinners Kraft Mac 397 14 411 13.42 30.63 4 98 320 ‘
&Cheese L'
Deluxe
41 1 13.42 30.63 4 98 320
41 1 13.42 30.63 4 98 320
192 Dinners Dinty 283 10 295 2.81 104.81 1 283 270
Moore
Chicken
Noodle
295 2.81 104.81 1 283 270
295 2.81 104.81 1 283 270
295 2.81 104.81 1 283 270
193 Dinners cho- 418 14.5 435 3.45 126.00 2 252 200
American
Mac&
Cheese
435 3.45 126.00 2 252 200
435 3.45 126.00 2 252 200
Product Material Packaging Surface Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight,g Area, cm2 cm Material,
cm3
185 TOTAL 77.74 4228.55 0.59 330.63 Paperboard outercarton
PB outer carton 19.69 770.900 0.032 24.823 Polystyrene tray, Paper/plastic
PS tray 12.59 534.070 0.469 250.692 baking tray. Foil/plastic pouch

Paper/plastic tray 29.52 588.920 0.064 37.750 Plastic pouch, outer plastic
Foil/plastic pouch 3.53 504.560 0.007 3.734 wrap
Outer plastic wrap 1.87 925.120 0.003 2.590
Plastic pouch 10.54 904.980 0.012 11.041
186 TOTAL 21.14 2731.26 0.03 21.79 Outer plastic fin sealed pouch
Outer plastic pouch 12.54 1422.440 0.008 1 1.948 lnner plastic pouch
lnner plastic pouch 4.98 275.650 0.018 4.989 lnner plastic mesh pouch

Mesh pouch 3.62 1033.170 0.005 4.856
191 TOTAL 65.97 2215.47 0.08 69.42 Paperboard outer carton
PB outer carton 36.43 1272.230 0.036 45.800 Plastic film cover with PET
Plastic film 1.08 438.350 0.002 0.745 tray

 

188

 

 

 

‘2'...’ .VI

 

 

 

 

PET Plate 28.46 504.890 0.045 22.872
187 TOTAL 64.48 1897.26 0.07 80.26 Paperboard outer carton
PB outer carton 56.88 1350.780 0.054 72.942 Plastic/foil laminate
Plastic/foil Pouch 7.60 546.480 0.013 7.323 pouch
188 TOTAL 24.38 877.37 0.05 27.76 Paperboard outer carton
PB outer carton 22.21 620.380 0.042 25.808 Plastic/foil/paper laminated
Plastic/foil/Paper pouch 2.17 256.990 0.008 1.953 pouch
189 TOTAL 39.05 1 184.09 0.06 42.60 Paperboard outer carton
PB outer carton 35.17 846.330 0.046 38.677 Plastic/foil/paper laminated
Plastic/foil/Paper Pouch 3.88 337.760 0.012 3.918 pouch
190 TOTAL 34.51 949.82 0.07 39.97 Paperboard outer carton
PB outer carton 30.59 676.240 0.054 36.382 Plastic/foil laminate
Foil/plastic pouch 3.92 273.580 0.013 3.584 pouch
192 TOTAL 46.86 1 132.58 0.14 54.38 Paperboard outer carton
PB outer carton 26.43 721.870 0.045 32.195 Plastic tray with plastic film
Plastic film 2.70 172.250 0.013 2.153 cover
Plastic tray 17.73 238.460 0.084 20.031
193 TOTAL 56.10 642.78 0.04 15.97 3 piece steel can, paper label
3 Piece Can 53.76 373.330 0.038 14.112
Paper Label 2.34 269.450 0.007 1.859
C.13 Dish Soap Product Group
Product Product Category Brand Name Label Weight, Label Weight, 11 Measured Uses per container. one
Number ml 02 Weight, m1 wash basis
Hand
176 Dish Soap Pamolive 1240 42 1268 84.53
Ultra 1268 84.53
177 Dish Soap Pamolive 434 14.7 444 29.60
Ultra 444 29.60
178 Dish Soap Dawn Ultra 1260 42.7 1278 85.20
1278 85.20
179 Dish Soap Dawn Ultra 828 28 836 55.73
836 55.73
Auto
g oz g one wash basis
180 Dish Soap Cascade 1400 50 1426 25.46
Powder 1426 25.46
181 Dish Soap Cascade 2400 85 2421 43.23
Gel 2421 43.23
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness. cm Volume Description
Number Weight, g cm2 Material, cm3
Hand
176 TOTAL 72.65 908.91 0.05 42.54 PET bottle, recloseable cap
Plastic bottle 72.65 908.910 0.047 42.537
177 TOTAL 30.77 384.96 0.05 18.44 PET bottle, recloseable cap
Plastic bottle 30.77 384.960 0.048 18.440
178 TOTAL 59.79 841.48 0.05 45.19 HDPE bottle, recloseable cap
Plastic bottle 59.79 841.480 0.054 45.187
179 TOTAL 46.43 653.46 0.05 35.35 HDPE bottle, recloseable cap
Plastic bottle 46.43 653.460 0.054 35.352

 

189

II”

 

Auto

 

 

 

 

180 TOTAL 81 .60 1054.00 0.08 87.17 Paperboard box with
PB box 81.60 1054.000 0.083 87.166 foil/plastic outer coating
181 TOTAL 124.91 1486.50 0.08 120.70 HDPE plastic bottle
Plastic bottle 124.91 1486.500 0.081 120.704
C .14 Drink Mix Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Drink Mix. Manufacturer Serving Calories/
Number Category Weight,g Weight, Weight,g container, ml prepared Serving Size,g Serving
oz 240ml basis
118 Drink Kool-Aid 538 19 548.05 31.79 7630.47 32 17 60
Mix
548.05 31.79 7630.47 32 17 60
548.05 31 .79 7630.47 32 17 60
119 Drink Kool-Aid 39.6 1.4 42.72 32.41 7778.00 32 1.3 5
Mix
42.72 32.41 7778.00 32 1.3 5
42.72 32.41 7778.00 32 1.3 5
120 Drink Crystal 51 1.8 54.31 44.63 10712.19 48 1.2 5
Mix Light
54.31 44.63 10712.19 48 1.2 5
54.31 44.63 10712.19 48 1.2 5
54.31 44.63 10712.19 48 1.2 5
54.31 44.63 10712.19 48 1.2 5
121 Drink Drink-Aid 538 19 543.89 31.55 7572.55 32 17 60
Mix
543.89 31.55 7572.55 32 17 60
543.89 31.55 7572.55 32 17 60
543.89 31.55 7572.55 32 17 60
543.89 31.55 7572.55 32 17 60
259 Drink Kool-Aid 4.5 0.16 4.62 7.59 1822.51 8 0.6 0
Mix
4.62 7.59 1822.51 8 0.6 0
117 Drink Mott's Ina 340 11.5 347 5.70 1368.86 6 60 100
Mix minute
347 5.70 1368.86 6 60 100
Product Material Packaging Surface Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight, g Area. cm2 cm M22381.
118 TOTAL 63.22 1045.54 0.09 56.89 HDPE Plastic container with
Plastic container 61.64 684.550 0.080 54.901 screw-on top. Plastic label on
Plastic label 1.58 360.990 0.006 1.985 outside
119 TOTAL 22.76 1238.21 0.05 23.75 Paperboard box with4
PB box 15.72 404.210 0.044 17.745 plastic/foil/paper laminate
4Papcr/foil/Plasticpouch 7.04 834.000 0.007 6.005 pouches
120 TOTAL 48.01 1334.83 0.14 54.42 Plastic tube with6plastic
Plastic tube 29.89 437.320 0.078 33.892 foil sealed cups. Plastic
6P1astic cups 14.58 365.160 0.043 15.519 outer labeling.
Foil seals 0.40 153.830 0.012 1.907
Plastic label 3.14 378.520 0.008 3.104
121 TOTAL 100.91 1077.26 0.20 52.82 Paperboard tube with metal
PB cannister 48.17 329.600 0.110 36.256 top and bottom. Paper label
Metal lid/bottom 43.00 314.000 0.024 7.410 plastic recloseable HDPE lid

 

190

 

Plastic lid 6.54 104.060 0.062 6.452

Paper label 3.20 329.600 0.008 2.703
259 TOTAL 1.78 208.59 0.01 1.67 Plastic/foil/paper laminate
Paper/plastic/foil Pouch 1.78 208.590 0.008 1.669 pouch
l 17 TOTAL 15.06 515.22 0.01 6.44 Aluminum can

Aluminum can 15.06 515.220 0.013 6.440

 

C. 1 5 Egg Product Group

 

 

 

 

Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calories/
Number Category Weight, g Weight, Weight. g container, Size. 100 Serving Size.g Serving
oz 100 cal basis cal basis
171 Eggs Eggland's 600 21 679 9.506 71.429 12 50 70
Best
679 9.506 71.429 12 50 70
172 Eggs Kroger 600 21 689 9.646 71 .429 12 50 70
689 9.646 71.429 12 50 70
174 Eggs Goff's 1200 42 1247 17.458 71.429 24 50 70
1247 17.458 71 .429 24 50 70
1247 17.458 71.429 24 50 70
258 Eggs Kroger 1200 42 1237 17.318 71.429 24 50 70
1247 17.458 71.429 24 50 70
1247 17.458 71 .429 24 50 70
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness.cm Volume Description
Number Weight, g cm2 Material, cm3
171 TOTAL 15.65 1007.47 0.22 217.41 Expanded polystryrene (EPS)
Foam carton 15.65 1007.470 0.216 217.412 foam carton.
172 TOTAL 48.50 1 161.15 0.10 1 19.83 Paper molded carton
Paper carton 48.50 1 161.150 0.103 119.831
174 TOTAL 73.43 2698.84 0.12 190.26 Paper molded carton
Paper carton 64.98 1624.320 0.1 13 182.736 Plastic outer wrap
Plastic wrap 8.45 1074.520 0.007 7.522
258 TOTAL 33.22 2483.99 0.21 310.1 1 Expanded polystyrene (EPS)
Foam carton 24.86 1468.120 0.205 300.965 foam carton. Outer plastic
Plastic wrap 8.36 1015.870 0.009 9.143 wrap

 

C.16 Fruit Product Group

 

Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calories/

Number Category Weight. g Weight, Weight. g container, Size, 100 cal Serving Size,g Serving
oz 100 cal basis basis
214 Fruit Sunkist 1810 64 1826 8.30 220.00 1 l 154 70
1826 8.30 220.00 1 1 154 70
1826 8.30 220.00 1 1 154 70
215 Fruit Sunfresh 737 26 749 4.16 180.00 6 126 70
749 4.16 180.00 6 126 70
749 4.16 180.00 6 126 70
216 Fruit Del Monte 425 15 439 2.12 206.67 3.5 124 60

439 2.12 206.67 3.5 124 60
439 2.12 206.67 3.5 124 60

217 Fruit Del Monte 822 29 838 6.60 127.00 6 127 100
838 6.60 127.00 6 127 100
838 6.60 127.00 6 127 100
218 Fruit Del Monte 453 16 467 3.31 141.25 4 113 80

 

191

 

 

 

 

 

 

467 3.31 141.25 4 113 80
467 3.31 141.25 4 113 80
467 3.31 141.25 4 113 80
221 Fruit Sunkist 454 16 454 2.06 220.00 3 154 70
Fresh 454 2.06 220.00 3 154 70
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight, g cm2 cm Material. cm3
214 TOTAL 7.28 255.83 0.05 5.83 Plastic mesh bag. Plastic
Plastic mesh bag 5.38 108.290 0.037 4.028 label
Plastic label 1.90 147.540 0.012 1.800
215 TOTAL 341.98 404.14 0.34 109.34 Clear glass jar. Metal lug cap
Clear glass jar 327.05 347.380 0.310 107.723
Metal lug cap 14.93 56.760 0.029 1.618
216 TOTAL 57.88 653.54 0.04 16.32 3 piece steel can. Paper
3-piece steel can 54.66 379.580 0.038 14.462 label
paper label 3.22 273.960 0.007 1.863
217 TOTAL 111.36 1264.02 0.05 32.32 3 piece steel can. Paper
3-piece steel can 105.72 734.150 0.039 28.558 label
Paper label 5.64 529.870 0.007 3.762
218 TOTAL 120.00 1382.83 0.14 79.51 4 3-piece steel cans with
4 3-piece steel cans 103.52 638.550 0.096 61.173 paperboard carton. 4 Paper
PB carton 13.96 464.210 0.035 16.294 labels on can
4 paper label 2.52 280.070 0.007 2.045
221 TOTAL 2.49 3918.69 0.001 3.13 HDPE plastic bag
plastic bag 2.49 3918.690 0.001 3.135
C. 1 7 Gum Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calories/
Number Category Weight, g Weight, oz Weight, g Container, size, 100 Serving Size, g Serving
100 cal basis cal basis
45 Gum Bubble 100 3.527 90.95 2.729 33.333 20 5 15
Yum
90.95 2.729 33.333 20 15
90.95 2.729 33.333 20 15
90.95 2.729 33.333 20 15
46 Gum Spartan 85 3 88.85 2.666 33.333 17 5 15
88.85 2.666 33.333 17 15
88.85 2.666 33.333 17 15
88.85 2.666 33.333 17 15
47 Gum Extra 108 3.78 108.87 2.016 54.000 40 2.7 5
108.87 2.016 54.000 40 5
108.87 2.016 54.000 40 5
108.87 2.016 54.000 40 5
108.87 2.016 54.000 40 5
108.87 2.016 54.000 40 5
48 Gum Doublemin 13.5 0.5 16.1 0.298 54.000 5 2.7 5
t
16.1 0.298 54.000 5 5
16.1 0.298 54.000 5 5
16.1 0.298 54.000 5 5
134 Gum Dentyne 18 0.6 16.66 0.278 60.000 6 3 5
Ice
16.66 0.278 60.000 6 5
16.66 0.278 60.000 6 5

 

192

 

 

 

16.66 0.278 60.000 6 5
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness. Volume Description
Number Weight. g cmZ cm Material. cm3
45 TOTAL 8.870 1 103.520 0.020 7.177 Plastic outer wrap
Plastic outer wrap 2.280 299.280 0.008 2.364 S Plastic/foil laminate gum
wrappers,
Plastic/foil laminate 3.600 305.440 0.007 2.169 20 Paper gum wrapper,
wrapper
Paper gum wrapper 2.990 498.80 0.0053 2.644 4 packs
46 TOTAL 8.840 1523.380 0.021 8.185 Plastic outer bag,
Plastic bag 1.810 467.28 0.0040 1.869 Paper adhesive label
Paper adhesive label 1.870 150.00 0.01 19 1.785 17 Paper gum wrappers
paper wrapper 5.160 906.10 0.0050 4.531
47 TOTAL 23.650 4057.200 0.024 22.824 Plastic outer bag,
Plastic outer bag 2.850 439.76 0.0051 2.243 adhesive paper label. Plastic/foil
Plastic/foil laminate 6.040 613.04 0.0080 4.904 laminated wrapper, paper wraps
wrapper
Paper wrapper 5.570 1366.80 0.0050 6.834 foil wraps, 8 packs
Foil wrapper 9.190 1637.600 0.0054 8.843
Paper label 1.000 194.640 0.0099 1.927
48 TOTAL 2.740 442.300 0.020 2.735 Plastic/foil outer wrapper
Plastic/foil outer 0.700 62.30 0.0087 0.542 5 Paper wrappers,
wrapper
Paper wrapper 0.880 170.85 0.0061 1.042 5 Foil wrappers,
Foil wrapper 1.160 209.15 0.0055 1.150 1 pack
134 TOTAL 5.740 291.140 0.057 6.417 Paperboard sleeve,
PB cover 3.200 122.18 0.0306 3.739 Plastic blister pack, foil seal.
Plastic blister 1.540 108.96 0.0226 2.462 12 pieces.
foil cover 1.000 60.00 0.0036 0.216

 

C. 18 Hand Soap Product Group

 

Product

Product Category

Number

Bar
9

10

ll

12

14

15

Soap

Soap

Soap

Soap

Soap

Soap

Brand Name

Dial

Dial

Dial

Ivory

Lever 2000

Lava

Label Weight. g Label Weight. oz

 

250 9
425 15
1400 50
254 9
280 10
163 5.75

Measured Uses per container
Weight. g
264.65 126.02
264.65 126.02
264.65 126.02
430.1 1 204.81
430.1 1 204.81
430.1 1 204.81
1420.8 676.57
1420.8 676.57
1420.8 676.57
1420.8 676.57
258.84 123.26
258.84 123.26
258.84 123.26
287.46 136.89
287.46 136.89
171.59 81.71
171.59 81.71

 

193

 

 

 

 

 

171.59 81.71
Liquid
ml fl 02 ml
8 Soap Dial 443 15 458 91.60
458 91.60
13 Soap Dial 221 7.5 224 44.80
224 44.80
224 44.80
16 Soap Softsoap 221 7.5 225 45.00
225 45.00
Product Material Packaging Surface Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight. g Area. cm2 cm Packaging,
cm3
Bar
9 TOTAL 20.38 1471.24 0.05 27.31 Paperboard box with 2 bars
PB box 19.16 544.870 0.049 26.481 individually plastic wrapped
2 plastic soap wraps 1.22 926.370 0.001 0.834 soap.
10 TOTAL 8.84 1201.91 0.01 8.36 3 Paper/Plastic laminate
3 Plastic/paper soap wrap 6.87 683.650 0.010 6.495 soap wraps. Outer
Plastic/foil outer wrap 1.97 518.260 0.004 1.866 plastic/foil laminate wrap
1 1 TOTAL 32.87 3564.35 0.04 34.99 10 Paper/plastic laminate
PB outer card 7.04 265.400 0.031 8.307 soap wraps. Paperboard
10 Plastic/paper soap wrap 23.50 2403.160 0.010 23.551 backing card. Plastic outer
Plastic outer wrap 2.33 895.790 0.004 3.135 wrap
12 TOTAL 16.98 1072.03 0.04 22.81 2 paperboard boxes. Plastic
2 PB box 15.40 578.740 0.036 20.835 outer wrapping
Plastic outer wrap 1.58 493.290 0.004 1.973
14 TOTAL 23 .39 734.91 0.05 33 .22 Paperboard laminate
PB laminate box 23.39 734.910 0.045 33.218 box. Contains 2 soaps
15 TOTAL 4.84 377.64 0.03 5.24 Paper/plastic outer soap
wrap.
Plastic/paper outer wrap 1.61 189.860 0.008 1.462 Paperboard backing
PB backing 3.23 187.780 0.020 3.774
Liquid
8 TOTAL 78.67 692.98 0.07 45.67 PET plastic bottle
PET bottle 78.67 692.980 0.066 45.667
13 TOTAL 52.40 850.85 0.12 46.85 Paperboard carton with PET
PB box 18.22 529.400 0.045 23.929 plastic bottle with plastic
pump.
PET bottle 34.18 321.450 0.071 22.919
16 TOTAL 39.25 345.71 0.07 25.82 PET plastic bottle with
plastic
PET bottle 39.25 345.710 0.075 25.825 pump.
C.19 Ice Cream Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calories/
Number Category Weight, g Weight, Weight. g container, Size, 100 Serving Size.g Serving
oz 100 cal basis cal basis
236 Ice Old 2560 90 2578 48.34 53.33 40 64 120
Cream Fashioned
2578 48.34 53.33 40 64 120
237 Ice Kroger 1 168 42 l 175 25.75 45.63 16 73 160
Cream

 

194

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1175 25.75 45.63 16 73 160
238 Ice Breyers 1 104 39 1 125 24.46 46.00 16 69 150
Cream
1 125 24.46 46.00 16 69 150
l 125 24.46 46.00 16 69 150
239 Ice Homemade 1376 48 1389 29.07 47.78 16 86 180
Cream
1389 29.07 47.78 16 86 180
1389 29.07 47.78 16 86 180
1389 29.07 47.78 16 86 180
240 lee Haagen Dazs 848 30 854 21.75 39.26 8 106 270
Cream
854 21.75 39.26 8 106 270
854 21 .75 39.26 8 106 270
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight, g cm2 cm Materia1,cm3
236 TOTAL 78.69 1518.39 0.06 89.59 HDPE plastic tub with lid
Plastic tub & lid 78.69 1518.390 0.059 89.585
237 TOTAL 58.64 1675.32 0.04 75.12 Laminated Paperboard
PB carton 58.64 1987.360 0.038 75.122 container
238 TOTAL 59.96 1356.54 0.07 74.59 Laminated Paperboard
PB carton 52.34 1428.630 0.048 68.574 container with plastic LDPE
Plastic lid 7.62 231.210 0.026 6.01 1 lid
239 TOTAL 61.01 1868.52 0.08 70.74 Laminated Paperboard
PB Tub 51.68 1598.620 0.039 61.867 container with paperboard
PB lid 8.79 245.100 0.036 8.750 lid and plastic window.
Plastic window 0.54 24.800 0.005 0.124
240 TOTAL 29.13 990.66 0.06 33.98 Laminated Paperboard
PB Tub 24.63 865.120 0.036 30.971 cup with plastic lid.
Plastic lid 4.50 125.540 0.024 3.013
C.20 Juice Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Manufacturer Serving Size, Calories/
Number Category Weight, ml Weight, 11 02 Weight, m1 Container, Serving m1 Serving
240ml bmis
80 Juice Speas Farm 978 33.07 995 4.146 6 163 80
995 4.146 6 80
995 4.146 6 80
81 Juice Speas Farm 492 16.92 500 2.083 4 125 60
500 2.083 4 210
500 2.083 4 210
500 2.083 4 210
500 2.083 4 210
82 Juice Speas Farm 1360 46 1380 5.750 6 227 120
1380 5.750 6 120
1380 5.750 6 120
83 Juice Mott's 750 25.5 740 3.083 3 250 120
740 3.083 3 120
740 3.083 3 120
740 3.083 3 120
740 3.083 3 120
84 Juice Minute Maid 2250 76.05 2260 9.417 9 250 120

 

195

 

85

86

88

89

9O

97

91

92

93

94

96

98

99

Juice

Juice

Juice

Juice

Juice

Juice

Juice

Juice

Juice

Juice

Juice

Juice

Juice

Mott's
Musselman's
Wilderness

Capri - Sun

Minute Maid

Minute Maid

Minute Maid

Kroger
Kroger
Tropicana

Minute Maid

Tropicana

Minute Maid

3790

3548

1890

2000

355

475

2840

3780

946

473

1890

720

1420

128

120

64

67.5

12

16

96

127.8

32

16

24

48

2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
3890
3890
3565
3565
1930
1930
2150
2150
2150
2150
2150
364
364
364
364
490
490
490
490
2860
2860
2860
3865
3865
960
960
480
480
1890
1890
1890
760
760
760
760
760
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500

9.417
9.417
9.417
9.417
9.417
16.208
16.208
14.854
14.854
8.042
8.042
8.958
8.958
8.958
8.958
8.958
5.195
5.195
5.195
5.195
7.886
7.886
7.886
7.886
1 1.917
1 1.917
1 1.917
16.104
16.104
4.000
4.000
2.000
2.000
7.875
7.875
7.875
3.167
3.167
3.167
3.167
3.167
6.250
6.250
6.250
6.250
6.250
6.250

QGOO‘O‘wawwWOOWOONNh-b

236

221

236

215

60

60

236

236

240

240

240

240

236

120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
100
100
100
100
100
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
100
100
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
120
120
120
120
120
110
110
110
110
110
110

 

196

 

Product
Number

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

88

89

90

97

91

Material

TOTAL
Can

Plastic can ring holder

TOTAL
Paper/foil box

Plastic outer wrap
straw plastic wrap
straw
TOTAL
Can
Paper Label
TOTAL

Paper/foil box

outer plastic wrap
straw wrap
straw
TOTAL

Paper/foil box

outer plastic wrap
PB backing
straw
straw wrap
TOTAL
Plastic bottle
TOTAL
Plastic bottle
TOTAL
Clear glass bottle
TOTAL

Corrugated Box

Aluminum/plastic
pouch
straw plastic outer
wrap
straw
TOTAL
Paper Board Tube
Metal top/bottom
Plastic seal
TOTAL
Paper board tube
Metal top/bottom
Plastic seal
TOTAL

Packaging 'Surface Area, Thickness,

Weight. g
185.080
181.960
3.120
32.330
27.870

1.870
0.890
1.700
164.388
159.290
5.098
37.790

33.290

2.310
0.750
1.440

88.330

67.150

3.280

1 1.250

4.670

1.980
173.030
173.030
155.140
155.140
640.770
640.770
200.800

134.560

56.200

2.150

7.890
28.430
11.980
15.880

0.570
34.860
18.150
16.140
0.570

101.540

cm2

1421.510
1377.62
43.89
1528.050
788.48

506.00
163.20
70.37
1293.070
842.06
451.01
1846.380

1029.56

595.65

159.72

61.45
5396.610

2955.96

1339.80
443.00
178.69
479.16

3274.670

3274.67
1756.380

1756.38

0.000
0.00
5809.940

1842.33

3410.40

414.40

142.81
339.440
249.26
72.63
17.55
417.190
329.13
70.51
17.55
1580.035

cm

0.0708
0.0309
0.0399
0.0721
0.0434

0.0019
0.0022
0.0246
0.046
0.0355
0.0102
0.0659

0.0380

0.0018
0.0241
0.0020
0.1 138

0.0520

0.0034
0.0330
0.0236
0.0018
0.0413
0.0413
0.1 158
0.1 158
0.0000
0.0000
0.3765

0.3255

0.0130

0.0019

0.0361
0.154
0.0708
0.0505
0.0324
0.145
0.0623
0.0505
0.0324
0.1 13

Volume

Material, cm3

44.320
42.568
1.751
37.272
34.220

0.961
0.359
1.731
34.493
29.893
4.600
44.168

39.123

1.072

3.849

0.123
177.964

153.710

4.555
14.619
4.217
0.862
135.244
135.244
203.389
203.389
310.460
310.460
649.956

599.678

44.335

0.787

5.155
21.884
17.648

3.668

0.569
24.634
20.505

3.561

0.569

129.390

Description

6 3-piece steel cans
Plastic ring holder

4 Paper/plastic/foil laminated
tetra-pak boxs. Plastic outer
wrap.

Plastic straw wrap.

3-piece steel can
Paper label

3 Paper/plastic/foil laminated
dflnk

boxs. Plastic outer wrap.
Straw,

straw plastic wrap

9 Paper/plastic/foil laminated
drink

box, plastic outer wrap.
Paperboard

outer label, straws, straw wrap

PET plastic with recloseable lid
HDPE plastic recloseable bottle
Clear glass bottle

10 plastic/foil laminated
pouches.

Corrugated box, straws and
plastic

straw wrappers.

Paperboard tube with aluminum
top and bottom closures. Plastic
seal around top closure.

Paperboard tube, aluminum
top and bottom closures. Plastic

seal around top closure

Plastic bottle, foil seal,

 

197

 

 

 

 

Plastic bottle 101.220 1516.45 0.0841 127.533 plastic cap
foil seal 0.320 63.59 0.0292 1.857
92 TOTAL 69.790 1759.130 0.040 70.365 Plastic HDPE gallon jug
HDPE gallon jug 69.790 1759.13 0.0400 70.365
93 TOTAL 38. 150 761.600 0.053 40.060 Gable-top paperboard carton
PB gable top carton 38.150 761.60 0.0526 40.060
94 TOTAL 24.520 487.900 0.056 27.225 Gable-top paperboard carton
PB gable top carton 24.520 487.90 0.0558 27.225
96 TOTAL 83.180 1302.210 0.242 89.878 Gable-top paperboard carton,
PB gable top carton 80.030 1255.64 0.0650 81.617 plastic spout, plastic cap.
Plastic spout/closure 3.150 46.57 0.1774 8.262
98 TOTAL 69.040 1748.620 0.126 80.684 Paperboard holder, 3 gable-top
PB holder 21.160 628.23 0.0420 26.386 paperboard cartons. Plastic
straw
PB carton 42.960 957.63 0.0544 52.095 wrap and 3 straws
straw wrap 3.000 90.90 0.0040 0.364
straws 1.920 71.86 0.0256 1.840
99 TOTAL 148.030 2604.240 0.065 187.652 6 plastic HDPE bottles, plastic
Plastic bottle 94.300 0.00 0.0000 163.600 labels, foil seals, recloseable
PB outer wrap 10.700 401.98 0.0311 12.502 plastic HDPE lids. Paperboard
plastic label 23.040 1023.84 0.0044 4.505 label, plastic outer wrap.
foil seal 3.770 68.42 0.0251 1.717
Plastic outer wrap 16.220 1 1 10.00 0.0048 5.328
C.21 Laundry Detergent Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Standard Uses, Manufacturer Use
Number Category Weight. ml Weight, 11 Weight, ml washes per wash per Amount, ml
02 container container
Liquid
1 10 Laundry Tide 1470 50 1490 12.31 12 121
Detergent
1490 12.31 12
1 1 1 Laundry Tide 5910 200 5922 48.94 48 121
Detergent
5922 48.94 48
1 12 Laundry Tide 2660 90 2698 22.30 22 121
Detergent
2698 22.30 22
Powder
8 02 g g
1 13 Laundry Tide 5270 186 5286.27 85.26 85 62
Detergent
5286.27 85.26 85
5286.27 85.26 85
1 14 Laundry Tide 620 22 703.19 1 1.34 10 62
Detergent
703.19 11.34 10
1 15 Laundry Tide 4020 142 4079.2 65.79 65 62
Detergent
4079.2 65.79 65
1 16 Laundry Tide 1 100 39 1166.07 18.81 18 62
Detergent
1166.07 18.81 18

 

198

 

Product Material Packaging Surface Area. Thickness. Volume Description

 

 

Number Weight. g cm2 cm Material. cm3
Liquid
1 10 TOTAL 231.87 0.00 0.00 147.25 HDPE plastic bottle with cap
Plastic bottle/cap 231.87 0.000 0.000 147.250
1 l 1 TOTAL 396.91 0.00 0.00 318.23 HDPE plastic bottle with cap
Plastic bottle/cap 396.91 0.000 0.000 318.230
1 12 TOTAL 121.42 0.00 0.00 194.04 HDPE plastic bottle with cap
Plastic bottle/cap 121.42 0.000 0.000 194.040
Powder
1 13 TOTAL 401.69 4971.63 0.21 462.72 Paperboard box with plastic
PB box 396.22 4871.230 0.093 450.589 strap r-
Plastic strap 5.47 100.400 0.121 12.128
1 14 TOTAL 71 .75 1373.37 0.06 80.75 Paperboard box
PB box 71.75 1373.370 0.059 80.754
115 TOTAL 28.11 2252.88 0.01 26.36 Plastic bag
Plastic bag 28.11 2252.880 0.012 26.359
1 16 TOTAL 102.85 1914.10 0.08 147.77 Paperboard box
PB box 102.85 1914.100 0.077 147.769 .
&—

C.22 Lunch Meat Product Group

 

Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calories/

 

 

Number Category Weight. g Weight, Weight, g container, Size, 100 Serving Size,g Serving
oz 100 cal basis cal basis
157 Lunch West 284 10 296 4.229 70 10 28 40
Meat Virginia
Brand 296 4.229 70 10 28 40
158 Lunch Hillshire 170 6 179 1.884 95 3 57 60
Meat Farms
179 1.884 95 3 57 60
179 1.884 95 3 57 60
159 Lunch Sara Lee 198 7 207 2.112 98 4 49 50
Meat
207 2.1 12 98 4 49 50
160 Lunch Russer 245 8 245 3 .063 80 10 56 70
Meat
245 3.063 80 10 56 70
245 3.063 80 10 56 70
Product Material Packaging Surface Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight, g Area, cm2 cm Material, cm3
157 TOTAL 4.38 423.44 0.01 3.73 Plastic sealed pouch LDPE
Plastic Pouch 4.38 423.440 0.009 3.726
158 TOTAL 19.71 91 1.00 0.04 20.65 Paperboard outer carton,
PB box 15.59 502.400 0.036 18.036 inner plastic 4-sided sealed
Plastic Pouch 4.12 408.600 0.006 2.615 pouch
159 TOTAL 9.05 668.30 0.01 5.61 Plastic recloseable pouch
Plastic Pouch 9.05 668.300 0.008 5.614
160 TOTAL 5.64 1666.14 0.01 6.37 LDPE recloseable bag
LDPE bag 4.94 1 122.100 0.005 5.61 1 Plastic inner wrapping
Plastic wrapping 0.70 544.040 0.001 0.762

 

199

 

C.23 Margarine Product Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Manufacturer Serving Size. g Calories/
Number Category Weight. g Weight. 02 Weight. g Serving Serving
167 Margarine Fleischman's 454 16 465 32 14 40

465 32 14 40
465 32 14 40
465 32 14 40
168 Margarine Promise Light 453 16 462 32 14 50
462 32 14 50
462 32 14 50
169 Margarine Fleischman's 340 12 343 23 15 5
Squeeazble 343 23 15 5
343 23 15 5 r
170 Margarine F leishman's 907 32 916 60 15 45
916 60 15 45
916 60 15 45
257 Margarine Spartan 453 16 459 32 14 100
459 32 14 100
459 32 14 100
Product Material Packaging Surface Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight. g Area. cm2 cm Material, cm3 L
167 TOTAL 45.09 1289.35 0.13 55.50 Paperboard carton with 2
PB carton 18.43 584.000 0.039 22.951 Polypropylene cups. 2
2 Plastic cups 14.72 461.620 0.043 19.757 recloseable plastic lids
2 Plastic lids 11.94 243.730 0.053 12.796
168 TOTAL 23.08 1465.72 _ 0.04 25.41 Paperboard carton with 4
PB carton 14.92 597.400 0.031 18.460 aluminum foil wrappers
4 Aluminum wrapper 8.16 868.320 0.008 6.947
169 TOTAL 41.48 798.56 0.07 39.55 HDPE bottle with foil seal
Plastic bottle 40.96 793.250 0.050 39.425
foil seal 0.52 5.310 0.024 0.127
170 TOTAL 39.09 799.03 0.14 57.29 HDPE tub with LDPE plastic
Plastic tub 37.49 537.960 0.075 40.239 lid
Plastic lid 1.60 261.070 0.065 17.048
257 TOTAL 20.81 1628.31 0.04 25.10 Paperboard carton with 4
PB carton 15.93 645.570 0.030 19.303 paper wrappers
4 Paper wrappers 4.88 982.740 0.006 5.798
C .24 Meat Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving C alories/
Number Category Weight, g Weight, Weight. g container. Size, 100 cal Serving Size.g Serving
oz 100 cal basis basis
198 Meat Goffs 966 34 968 16.28 59.47 8 1 13 190
968 16.28 59.47 8 1 13 190
968 16.28 59.47 8 l 13 190
968 16.28 59.47 8 1 13 190
199 Meat Goff‘s 494 17.5 501 8.42 59.47 4 1 13 190
501 8.42 59.47 4 1 13 190
501 8.42 59.47 4 1 13 190
501 8.42 59.47 4 l 13 190
200 Meat Goff‘s 1266 44.7 1271 30.37 41.85 9 113 270
1271 30.37 41.85 9 113 270
1271 30.37 41.85 9 113 270

 

200

 

 

 

 

 

 

201 Meat Goft‘s 639 22.5 642 15.34 41 .85 5 113 270
642 15.34 41.85 5 113 270
642 15.34 41 .85 5 113 270
Product Material Packaging Surface Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight, g Area. cm2 cm Material. cm3
198 TOTAL 26.60 2044.99 0.29 219.96 Plastic film laminated
PS tray 17.21 756.360 0.280 21 1 .630 expanded polystryrene (EPS)
Paper backing 1.70 262.510 0.007 1.864 tray. Plastic film seal.
Plastic barrier layer 7.69 1026.120 0.006 6.465
199 TOTAL 17.09 1357.26 0.29 135.11 Plastic film laminated
PS tray 10.52 462.340 0.280 129.363 expanded polystryrene (EPS)
Paper backing 0.87 134.340 0.007 0.954 tray. Plastic film seal.
Plastic barrier layer 5.70 760.580 0.006 4.792
200 TOTAL 1 1.1 1 3300.65 0.36 120.08 Expanded polystyrene tray,
PS tray 5.02 317.550 0.360 1 14.413 plastic outer wrap.
Plastic wrap 6.09 2983.100 0.002 5.668
201 TOTAL 8.13 2591.72 0.36 78.83 Expanded polystyrene tray,
PS tray 3.26 206.220 0.360 74.301 plastic outer wrap.
Plastic wrap 4.87 2385.500 0.002 4.532
C.25 Milk Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calories/
Number Category Weight, g Weight, Weight. g container. Size. 100 cal Serving Size.g Serving
oz 100 cal basis basis
162 Milk Springdale 3780 128 3795 12.65 300.00 16 240 80
3795 12.65 300.00 16 240 80
163 Milk Kroger 1890 64 1946 6.49 300.00 8 240 80
1946 6.49 300.00 8 240 80
164 Milk Kroger 946 32 957 3.19 300.00 4 240 80
957 3.19 300.00 4 240 80
165 Milk Melody 236 8 240 0.80 300.00 1 240 80
Farms
240 0.80 300.00 1 240 80
166 Milk Melody 473 16 480 2.40 200.00 2 240 120
Farms
480 2.40 200.00 2 240 120
161 Milk Springdale 1890 64 1920 6.40 300.00 8 240 80
1920 6.40 300.00 8 240 80
251 Milk Deans 946 32 953 3.57 266.67 4 240 90
953 3.57 266.67 4 240 90
953 3.57 266.67 4 240 90
252 Milk Deans 1400 48 1432 7.76 184.62 6 240 130
1432 7.76 184.62 6 240 130
1432 7.76 184.62 6 240 130
1432 7.76 184.62 6 240 130
260 Milk Quality 1890 64 1898 9.49 200.00 8 240 120
Dairy
1898 9.49 200.00 8 240 120

 

201

 

 

Product
Number

162

163

164

165

166

161

251

252

Material

TOTAL
Plastic Jug
TOTAL
PB laminated carton
TOTAL
PB laminated carton
TOTAL
PB laminated carton
TOTAL
Plastic bottle
TOTAL
Plastic jug
TOTAL
HDPE plastic bottle
Plastic label
TOTAL
6 HDPE plastic bottle
6 Plastic label
Plastic outer wrap
TOTAL
LDPE plastic pouch

Packaging Surface Area, Thickness,

Weight. g
67.47
67.47
63.34
63.34
33.66
33.66
14.91
14.91
30.81
30.81
35.23
35.23
53.52
49.32
4.20
136.61
123.90
5.72
6.99
12.40
12.40

cm2

0.00
0.000
1293.94
1293.940
882.21
882.210
221.45
221.450
533.12
533.120
0.00
0.000
1483.98
934.910
549.070
4486.59
2315.390
760.740
1410.460
1379.46
1379.460

cm

0.00
0.000
0.06
0.063
0.05
0.050
0.04
0.043
0.05
0.047
0.00
0.000
0.05
0.047
0.006
0.06
0.050
0.005
0.007
0.01
0.009

Volume

Material, cm3

70.25
70.250
81.52
81.518
44.29
44.287
9.43
9.434
25.00
25.003
42.15
42.150
47.05
44.034
3.020
128.89
1 15.075
3.804
10.014
12.97
12.967

Description

HDPE plastic jug
gallon

Paperboard laminated

gable top container

Paperboard laminated

gable top container

Paperboard laminated

gable top container
PET bottle

HDPE plastic jug
1/2 gallon
HDPE plastic bottle.

Plastic shrinkwrap label

6 HDPE plastic bottle.
6 Plastic shrinkwrap label

Plastic outer wrap

LDPE plastic pouch

 

C.26 Paper Towel Product Group

 

 

Fr7T2 .' h -.-.'.

 

 

Product Product Brand Name Label size one Label size one Measured size Uses per Manufacturer
Number Category square. cm2 square, in2 one square, cm2 container, 1 112 Sheet per
basis container
182 Paper Bounty Quilted 778.41 121 779.86 161.18 192
Towel
3 rolls 779.86 161.18 192
183 Paper Bounty 5616618 Size 424.08 66 424.87 80.49 176
Towel
1 roll 424.87 80.49 176
184 Paper Bounty Quilted 778.41 121 779.35 429.52 512
Towel
8 rolls 779.35 429.52 512
779.35 429.52 512
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight. g cm2 cm Material,
cm3
182 TOTAL 12.46 3998.79 0.003 13.60 3 Paper towel rolls. LDPE
Outer plastic wrap 12.46 3998.79 0.003 13.596 plastic outer wrap
183 TOTAL 6.22 2400.79 0.003 6.48 1 Paper towel roll. LDPE
Outer plastic wrap 6.22 2400.79 0.003 6.482 plastic outer wrap
184 TOTAL 77.43 24125.70 0.01 82.97 8 Paper towlel rolls. LDPE
Outer plastic wrap 37.91 8091.87 0.005 42.887 plastic outer wrap.
Individual
Individual plastic roll 39.52 16033.83 0.003 40.085 LDPE plastic roll wraps.

wrap

 

202

 

C.27 Pasta Product Group

 

bin!!! 1"1-—.m .. .

 

 

 

Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving C alories/
Number Category Weight. g Weight, oz Weight, g Container, size, 100 Serving Size, g Serving
100 cal basis cal basis
50 Pasta Contandina 227 8 223.11 8.220 27.143 4 57 210
223.11 8.220 27.143 4 210
223.11 8.220 27.143 4 210
5] Pasta La 454 16 451.4 16.415 27.500 8 55 200
Molisana
451.4 16.415 27.500 8 200
52 Pasta San Giorgio 454 16 454.46 17.042 26.667 8 56 210
454.46 17.042 26.667 8 210
454.46 1 7 .042 26.667 8 210
53 Pasta Racconto 454 16 457.73 17.165 26.667 8 56 210
457.73 17.165 26.667 8 210
54 Pasta Noma 255 9 268.71 7.271 36.957 3 85 230
Morelli
268.71 7.271 36.957 3 230
268.71 7.271 36.957 3 230
55 Pasta Dell-Alpe 227 8 221.05 8.842 25.000 4 55 220
221 .05 8.842 25.000 4 220
56 Pasta Antolma 907 32 910.35 33.539 27.143 16 57 210
910.35 33.539 27.143 16 210
57 Pasta Pastamania 227 8 237.26 8.325 28.500 4 57 200
237.26 8.325 28.500 4 200
237.26 8.325 28.500 4 200
58 Pasta Al dente 340 12 344.29 12.91 1 26.667 6 56 210
344.29 12.91 1 26.667 6 210
344.29 12.91 1 26.667 6 210
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight. g cm2 cm Material, cm3
50 TOTAL 23.900 664.76 0.051 29.632 Paperboard box,
PB box 23.050 609.26 0.0484 29.488 plastic window
Plastic window 0.850 55.50 0.0026 0.144
51 TOTAL 7.940 1495.680 0.006 76.005 Plastic pillow pouch with vertical
fin
Plastic Bag 7.940 1495.68 0.0057 76.005 back seal
52 TOTAL 28.085 760.78 0.0514 34.186 Paperboard box, plastic window
PB box 26.850 695.78 0.0489 34.024
Plastic window 1.235 65.00 0.0025 0.163
53 TOTAL 3.520 642.000 0.006 3.916 Plastic pillow pouch with vertical
fin
Plastic pouch 3.520 642.00 0.0061 3.916 back seal.
54 TOTAL 25.140 725.520 0.049 18.948 Plastic tray, plastic film top seal.
Plastic tray bottom 20.010 431.52 0.0341 14.715
Plastic film 5.130 294.00 0.0144 4.234
55 TOTAL 17.170 1363.480 0.011 15.271 Paper/plastic laminate gusseted
Paper/plastic 17.170 1363.48 0.01 12 15.271 bag
laminate bag
56 TOTAL 4.880 886.650 0.011 9.310 Plastic bag with vertical fin back
Plastic bag 4.880 886.65 0.0105 9.310 seal
57 TOTAL 15.450 1274.800 0.571 250.549 Expanded polystyrene (EPS)

tray,

 

203

 

 

 

 

58

PS tray 10.600 433.34 0.5642
Plastic film covering 4.850 841.46 0.0072
TOTAL 10.960 2009.530 0.012
Plastic Bag 9.840 1572.10 0.0036
Adhesive label 1.120 437.43 0.0083

244.490 plastic outer wrap.

6.059
9.290
5.660
3.631

Plastic bag, adhesive paper label,
adhesive paper seal.
Bag bunched and sealed at top.

 

C .28 Pet Food Product Group

 

 

 

 

Product Product Category Brand Name Label Weight, g Label Weight, Measured Uses per container, 1 feeding
Number oz Weight, g basis
60 Pet Food Friskies 368 13 369.85 2.39
369.85 2.39
369.85 2.39
61 Pet Food 9 Lives 156 5.5 154.91 1.00
154.91 1.00
154.91 1.00
64 Pet Food Fancy Feast 85 3 86.25 0.56
86.25 0.56
86.25 0.56
65 Pet Food Sheba 100 3.5 98.96 0.64
98.96 0.64
98.96 0.64
59 Pet Food Purina 1020.6 36 1037.03 16.83
1037.03 16.83
62 Pet Food Cat Chow 510 18 515.17 8.36
515.17 8.36
63 Pet Food 9 Lives 1587.6 56 1601.43 26.00
Plus Care 1601.43 26.00
66 Pet Food Cat Chow 8160 288 8231.35 133.63
8231.35 133.63
67 Pet Food Spartan 340 12 343.67 5.58
343.67 5.58
343.67 5.58
Product Material Packaging Surface Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight,g Area. cm2 cm Material, cm3
60 TOTAL 54.11 630.59 0.04 12.37 3 piece steel can. Paper
3-Piece steel Can 52.06 380.010 0.026 9.766 label
Paper Label 2.05 250.580 0.010 2.606
61 TOTAL 35.14 343.08 0.03 5.24 2 piece steel can. Paper
2-Piece steel Can 34.45 259.690 0.017 4.519 label
Paper Label 0.68 83.390 0.009 0.717
64 TOTAL 9.80 229.08 0.03 4.22 2 piece steel can. Paper
2-Piece steel Can 9.30 174.170 0.021 3.727 label
Paper Label 0.49 54.910 0.009 0.494
65 TOTAL 9.19 180.11 0.10 9.81 Plastic tray with plastic/
Plastic tray 7.17 1 12.080 0.073 8.137 foil seal
Plastic/foil laminate seal 2.02 68_03() 0.02 5 1.674
59 TOTAL 100.48 983.99 0.11 112.08 Plastic HDPE container,
HDPE Plastic container 100.48 983.990 0.1 14 112.076 plastic screw on lid
62 TOTAL 72.56 1334.57 0.06 85.41 Paperboard box
PB box 72.56 1334.570 0.064 85.412
63 TOTAL 36.12 2166.44 0.02 40.30 Paper/plastic laminate bag
Paper/Plastic laminate bag 36.12 2166.440 0.019 40.296
66 TOTAL 182.98 6127.50 0.09 571.70 Multi-wall paper bag,

 

204

 

Multi-wall paper bag 182.98 6127.500 0.093 571.696 plastic liner.
67 TOTAL 45.21 2901.42 0.05 57.78 Paperboard box, 6
PB box 41.10 1075.340 0.048 51.939 plastic pouches
6 Plastic pouches 4.1 1 1826.080 0.003 5.843

 

C.29 Poultry Product Group

 

 

 

 

Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacture Serving Calories/
Number Category Weight. g Weight, Weight, g container. Size, 100 cal r Serving Size.g Serving
oz 100 cal basis basis
202 Poultry Case Farms 1687 59 1691 26.86 62.96 19 85 135
1691 26.86 62.96 19 85 135
203 Poultry Case Farms 2077 73.2 2077 32.99 62.96 24 85 135
2077 32.99 62.96 24 85 135
2077 32.99 62.96 24 85 135
2077 32.99 62.96 24 85 135
Product Material Packaging Surface Area. Thickness. cm Volume Description
Number Weight. g cm2 Material, cm3
202 TOTAL 5.87 1439.10 0.00 6.62 LDPE bag.
LDPE bag 5.87 1439.100 0.005 6.620
203 TOTAL 34.64 5006.00 0.45 281.59 Expanded polystyrene tray,
PS tray 20.32 616.870 0.433 267.351 plastic label. Plastic outer
Plastic label 0.95 77.610 0.011 0.877 wrap
Plastic wrap 13.37 431 1.520 0.003 13.366

 

 

C.30 Seafood Product Group

 

Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calories/
Number Category Weight. g Weight, Weight, g container, Size, 100 cal Serving Size,g Serving
oz 100 cal basis basis

241 Tuna Star Kist 170 6 178 3.02 58.95 2.5 56 95
Fish

178 3.02 58.95 2.5 56 95

178 3.02 58.95 2.5 56 95

242 Tuna Star Kist 234 8.25 256 2.69 95.00 3 76 80
Fish

256 2.69 95.00 3 76 80

256 2.69 95.00 3 76 80

256 2.69 95.00 3 76 80

255 Tuna Star Kist 340 12 348 3.73 93.33 5 56 60
Fish

348 3.73 93.33 5 56 60

348 3.73 93.33 5 56 60

256 Tuna Star Kist 234 8.25 253 2.66 95.00 3 76 80
Fish

253 2.66 95.00 3 76 80

253 2.66 95.00 3 76 80

253 2.66 95.00 3 76 80

253 2.66 95.00 3 76 80

253 2.66 95.00 3 76 80

 

205

 

 

 

 

 

 

Product Material Packaging Surface Area. Thickness. cm Volume Description
Number Weight, g cm2 Material. cm3
241 TOTAL 32.13 368.52 0.04 7.55 2 piece steel can with paper
2-piece can 29.68 198.780 0.032 6.361 label
paper label 2.45 169.740 0.007 1.188
242 TOTAL 89.72 785.83 0.06 16.80 Paperboard carton with
3 2-piece cans 73.71 597.730 0.020 1 1.775 3 2-piece steel cans with pull
paper label 1.36 42.120 0.009 0.358 tab lid. 3 paper labels
PB carton 14.65 145.980 0.032 4.671
255 TOTAL 53.57 459.14 0.03 8.65 2 piece steel can with paper
2-piece can 52.36 318.160 0.024 7.636 label
paper label 1.21 140.980 0.007 1.015
256 TOTAL 143.83 2823.20 0.1 1 81.25 3 2-piece steel cans with pull
3 2-piece cans 73.83 604.210 0.022 13.293 tab lid. 3 paper labels
PB carton 24.37 808.840 0.038 30.655 3 PET plastic containers
PET container 42.25 1049.180 0.034 35.462 Paperboard carton
paper label 1.35 43.180 0.008 0.345 3 plastic seals
Plastic seal 2.03 317.790 0.005 1.494
C.31 Shampoo Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per container Manufacturer Use
Number Category Weight. m1 Weight. 11 Weight, m1 Uses per Amount,
oz container m1
232 Shampoo Pert Plus 443 15 456 45.60 76 6
456 45.60 76 6
233 Shampoo Suave 444 15 457 45.70 74 6
457 45.70 74 6
234 Shampoo Head & 200 6.8 212 21.20 33 6
Shoulders
212 21 .20 33 6
235 Shampoo Pert Plus 59 2 65 6.50 10 6
65 6.50 10 6
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness, cm Volume Material, Description
Number Weight. g cm2 cm3
232 TOTAL 47.09 539.64 0.08 42.47 HDPE container
Plastic container 47.09 539.640 0.079 42.470
233 TOTAL 37.07 784.36 0.04 28.63 PET container
Plastic container 37.07 784.360 0.037 28.629
234 TOTAL 32.52 345.32 0.1 1 39.30 HDPE container
Plastic container 32.52 345.320 0.114 39.297
235 TOTAL 10.50 158.62 0.07 11.09 HDPE container
Plastic container 10.50 158.620 0.070 11.088

 

206

C .32 Soft Drink Product Group

 

 

 

Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Manufacturer Serving C alories/
Number Category Weight, Weight, 11 Weight. m1 Container, Serving Size. ml Serving
ml 02 240ml basis
135 Soft Coca Cola 8517 288 8568 35.70 24 355 "'
Drinks
8568 35.70 24 355
8568 35.70 24 355
136 Sofl Coca Cola 3546 120 3555 14.81 6 590 *
Drinks
3555 14.81 6 590
3555 14.81 6 590
137 Soft IBC 945 32 948 3.95 4 240 l 10
Drinks
948 3.95 4 240
948 3.95 4 240
13 8 Soft Faygo 3000 100 3100 12.92 13 240 120
Drinks
3100 12.92 13 240
139 Soft Dr. Pepper 2130 72 2195 9.15 6 355 150
Drinks
2195 9.15 6 355
2195 9.15 6 355
140 Soft Meijer 4260 144 4320 18.00 12 355 *
Drinks
4320 18.00 12 355
4320 18.00 12 355
141 Soft Pepsi 2000 67 2040 8.50 8 240 *
Drinks
2040 8.50 8 240
142 Soft Coca-Cola 1420 48 1448 6.03 6 237 *
Drinks
1448 6.03 6 237
1448 6.03 6 237
143 Soft Sprite 591 20 600 2.50 l 591 100
Drinks
600 2.50 1 591
144 Sofi Coca-Cola 4260 144 4308 17.95 12 355 140
Drinks
4308 17.95 12 355
4308 17.95 12 355
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight. g cm2 cm Material, cm3
135 TOTAL 557.06 16058.13 0.07 384.27 Paperboard box, 24
PB b0x 200.90 4087.210 0.062 252.590 aluminum cans
24 Aluminum cans 356.16 1 1970.920 0.011 131.680
136 TOTAL 179.50 5160.18 0.06 133.97 6 PET plastic bottle,
6 Plastic bottle 172.92 5057.620 0.026 130.487 plastic ring holder
Plastic ring holder 6.58 102.560 0.034 3.487
137 TOTAL 468.03 0.00 0.00 206.40 Brown glass bottle,
Brown glass bottle 465.18 0.000 0.000 206.400 recloseable plastic cap
Plastic closure 2.85 0.000 0.000 0.000
138 TOTAL 83.45 2440.77 0.03 68.34 Plastic PET bottle
Plastic bottle 83.45 2440.770 0.028 68.342
139 TOTAL 95.16 3154.27 0.04 40.76 6 Aluminum cans,

 

207

 

 

 

6 Aluminum can 91.44 3073.400 0.013 38.418 plastic ring holder
Plastic ring holder 3.72 80.870 0.029 2.345
140 TOTAL 200.36 7604.42 0.03 96.24 12 aluminum cans,
12 Aluminum can 181.56 6102.430 0.012 75.060 plastic outer wrap
Plastic outer wrap 18.80 1501.990 0.014 21.178
141 TOTAL 57.26 1674.76 0.03 44.21 Plastic PET bottle
Plastic bottle 57.26 1674.760 0.026 44.214
142 TOTAL 1396.78 1394.42 0.04 841.27 6 clear glass bottles
Clear glass bottle 1348.14 779.920 Paperboard carton
PB carton 48.64 1394.420 0.044 61.354
143 TOTAL 31.33 916.35 0.03 23.28 PET plastic bottle, plastic
Plastic bottle 31.33 916.350 0.025 23.275 cap
144 TOTAL 305.99 9748.79 0.06 190.74 12 aluminum cans,
12 Aluminum cans 218.28 7336.630 0.011 83.638 paperboard box
PB box 87.71 2412.160 0.044 107.100
C.33 Soup Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calories/
Number Category Weight, g Weight, Weight, g container, Size, 100 cal Serving Size, g Serving
oz 100 cal basis basis
204 Soup Lipton Cup- 53.8 1.9 58.76 0.61 95.56 4 43 45
a-Soup
58.76 0.61 95.56 4 43 45
58.76 0.61 95.56 4 43 45
205 Soup Lipton Soup 124 4.4 131.58 4.67 28.18 4 31 1 10
Secrets
131.58 4.67 28.18 4 31 110
206 Soup Fantastic 43 1.5 49 1.71 28.67 1 43 150
Foods
49 1.71 28.67 1 43 150
49 1.71 28.67 1 43 150
207 Soup Campbell's 938 33.1 958 9.01 106.36 8 117 110
Frozen
958 9.01 106.36 8 117 110
958 9.01 106.36 8 1 17 110
958 9.01 106.36 8 117 110
208 Soup Campbell's 298 10.5 308 2.07 148.75 2.5 119 80
308 2.07 148.75 2.5 119 80
308 2.07 148.75 2.5 119 80
209 Soup Campbell's 539 19 549 2.65 207.31 2 269.5 130
Chunky
549 2.65 207.31 2 269.5 130
549 2.65 207.31 2 269.5 130
210 Soup Campells 680 24 695 3.38 205.45 3 226 1 10
695 3.38 205.45 3 226 1 10
695 3.38 205.45 3 226 1 10

 

 

208

 

Product Material Packaging Surface Thickness. Volume Description
Number Weight. g Area, cm2 cm Material,
cm3
204 TOTAL 23.61 1348.96 0.05 26.08 PB box,4 plastic/foil/
PB box 15.33 462.120 0.041 18.716 paper laminate pouches
4 Paper/foil/plastic Pouch 8.28 886.840 0.008 7.361
205 TOTAL 7.82 589.54 0.01 7.19 Paper/foil/plastic laminate
Paper/foil/Plastic Pouch 7.82 589.540 0.012 7.192 pouch.
206 TOTAL 12.32 395.16 0.06 16.12 Paperboard cup, plastic/
PB cup 11.45 326.080 0.047 15.358 paper laminate seal.
Paper/plastic seal 0.87 69.080 0.01 1 0.760
207 TOTAL 84.72 2720.57 0.10 1 11.05 Paperboard box, 2 HDPE
PB box 53.42 1512.920 0.052 78.067 plastic trays. Plastic film
HDPE tray 29.74 764.500 0.041 31.650 cover over trays.
Plastic film seal 1.56 443.150 0.003 1.329
208 TOTAL 39.64 531.94 0.05 17.10 2 piece steel can, paper
2-piece steel can 37.79 338.530 0.046 15.437 label.
Paper label 1.85 193.410 0.009 1.663
209 TOTAL 72.49 828.85 0.05 20.95 3 piece steel can, paper label
3-piece steel can 69.32 481.400 0.038 18.486
Paper label 3.17 347.450 0.007 2.467
210 TOTAL 315.53 372.88 0.34 101.25 Clear glass jar with metal lug
Clear glass jar 301.76 320.510 0.31 1 99.775 cap.
metal lug cap 13.77 52.370 0.028 1.472

 

C.34 Tissue Product Group

 

Product Product Brand Name Label size one Label size one Measured size Measured size Uses per Manufacturer
Number Category tissue cm2 tissue. in2 one tissue, one tissue, in2 container. 10.2 Uses per
cm2 basis container
122 Tissue Kleenex 457.8 70.96 479.3 74.29 61.91 120
Pocket Pack

479.3 74.29 61.91 120

479.3 74.29 61.91 120
123 Tissue Kleenex 445.17 69 461 . 1 71.47 29.28 59

Cold Care

461.1 71.47 29.28 59

461.1 71.47 29.28 59

461.1 71 .47 29.28 59
124 Tissue Kleenex 464.3 71.9 482.56 74.80 54.02 104

482.56 74.80 54.02 104

482.56 74.80 54.02 104
125 Tissue Kleenex 447.3 69.33 463.25 71.80 59.84 120

Travelers

463.25 71.80 59.84 120

463.25 71.80 59.84 120
126 Tissue Kleenex 464.34 71.97 487.36 75.54 92.33 176

Family Pack

487.36 75.54 92.33 176

487.36 75.54 92.33 176
127 Tissue Puffs Travel 476.13 73.8 491.23 76.14 38.07 72

Tissues
491.23 76.14 38.07 72
491.23 76.14 38.07 72

 

209

 

Product Material Packaging
Number Weight. g
122 TOTAL 29.17

8 plastic tissue wraps 2122

Outer plastic wrap 7.95
123 TOTAL 42.12
PB box 40.47

Plastic wrap 0.87

Plastic adhesive card 0.78
124 TOTAL 43.43
PB box 42.57

Plastic window 0.86
125 TOTAL 62.39
3 PB box 58.11

Outer plastic wrap 4.28
126 TOTAL 74.87
PB box 74.06

Plastic window 0.81
127 TOTAL 16.56
6 Plastic pouches 13.32

Outer plastic wrap 3.24

Surface
Area. cm2

2444.40
1568.040
876.360
1469.12
1008.320
358.080
102.720
1321.29
1028.940
292.350
2256.12
1676.160
579.960
1873.46
1627.220
246.240
3548.80
2620.800
928.000

Thickness,

cm

0.01
0.004
0.003

0.07
0.050
0.004
0.01 1

0.05
0.049
0.003

0.04
0.043
0.002

0.06
0.055
0.004

0.01
0.005
0.003

Volume

Description

Material. cm3

8.01
5.645
2.366
53.33

50.819

1.361
1.150
51.56

50.830
0.731
73.51

72.578
0.928
90.76

89.823
0.936

14.95
1 1.794
3.155

8 Individually wrapped
tissue packs. Plastic outer
wrap.

Paperboard box, plastic
window in box. Plastic
adhesive label over plastic
window

Paperboard box, plastic
window

3 Paperboard boxes,
plastic outer wrap.

Paperboard box, plastic
window in box.

6 Recloseable plastic
pouches. Plastic outer
wrap.

 

C.35 Toilet Tissue Product Group

 

 

 

 

Product Product Brand Name Label Size one Label Size one Measured size Measured size Uses per Manufacturer
Number Category square, cm2 square. in2 one square, one square, in2 Container, Sheets per
cm2 1112 basis Container
128 Toilet Charmin 130.64 20.25 132.16 20.48 79.67 560
Tissue
4 rolls 132.16 20.48 79.67 560
129 Toilet Charmin 130.64 20.25 131.97 20.46 477.31 3360
Tissue
12 rolls 131.97 20.46 477.31 3360
130 Toilet Scott 127.73 19.8 129.34 20.05 139.22 1000
Tissue
1 roll 129.34 20.05 139.22 1000
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight, g cm2 cm Materia1,cm3
128 TOTAL 8.97 2800.49 0.00 4 toilet tissue rolls. Plastic
Outer plastic wrap 8.97 2800.490 0.003 8.121 outer wrap
129 TOTAL 12.96 4649.74 0.00 12 toilet tissue rolls. Plastic
Outer plastic wrap 12.96 4649.740 0.003 14.414 outer wrap
130 TOTAL 4.10 1312.78 0.03 32.82 Paper wrapped single toilet
Paper wrapping 4.10 1312.780 0.025 32.820 tissue roll

 

210

C.36 Tomato Product Product Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Manufacturer Serving Size. g C alories/
Number Category Weight, g Weight, oz Weight. g Serving Serving
194 Tomato Heinz 1814 64 1836 106 17 15

Product
1836 106 17 15
1836 106 17 15
1836 106 17 15
195 Tomato Heinz 567 20 581 33 17 15
Product
581 33 17 15
581 33 17 15
581 33 17 15
196 Tomato Spartan 196 40 l 133 75 15 20
Product
1 133 75 15 20
1133 75 15 20
1 133 75 15 20
197 Tomato Del Monte 794 28 812 47 I7 15
Product
812 47 17 15
812 47 17 15
812 47 17 15
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness. cm Volume Description
Number Weight, g cm2 Material. cm3
194 TOTAL 94.92 792.69 0.21 69.96 PET bottle, plastic/foil
Plastic bottle 90.54 754.100 0.088 66.135 seal. PP cap.
Foil Seal 0.13 1.770 0.020 0.035
Plastic cap 4.25 36.820 0.103 3.792
195 TOTAL 43.06 360.64 0.21 32.03 PET bottle, plastic/foil
Plastic bottle 38.66 321.990 0.088 28.239 seal. PP cap.
Foil Seal 0.16 1.840 0.020 0.036
Plastic cap 4.24 36.810 0.102 3.755
196 TOTAL 66.76 649.79 0.23 63.61 Plastic bottle, plastic/foil
Plastic bottle 61.27 61 1.250 0.098 59.597 seal. PP cap.
Foil Seal 0.25 1.740 0.020 0.034
Plastic cap 5.24 36.800 0.108 3.974
197 TOTAL 51.80 612.31 0.22 58.79 Plastic bottle, plastic/foil
Plastic bottle 44.33 573.680 0.096 54.959 seal. PP cap.
Foil Seal 0.21 1.760 0.020 0.035
Plastic cap 7.26 36.870 0.103 3.798
C.37 Toothpaste Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Manufacturer Use Amount, Calories/
Number Category Weight,g Weight, 02 Weight,g Container, Serving g Serving
1.572g basis
226 Toothpaste Crest 181 6.4 179.64 114.27 115 1.572 *
179.64 114.27 115 1.572
179.64 1 14.27 1 15 1.572
227 Toothpaste Sensodyne 1 l3 4 124 78.88 71 1.572 *
124 78.88 71 1.572
124 78.88 71 1.572
228 Toothpaste Crest 24 0.85 29 18.45 15 1.572 *

 

211

 

 

 

 

 

29 18.45 15 1.572
29 18.45 15 1.572
229 Toothpaste Colgate 170 6 184 l 17.05 108 1.572 *
184 117.05 108 1.572
184 117.05 108 1.572
230 Toothpaste Crest 170 6 179 113.87 108 1.572 *
179 113.87 108 1.572
179 113.87 108 1.572
179 113.87 108 1.572
231 Toothpaste Menta—Dent 99 3.5 107 68.07 62 1.572 *
107 68.07 62 1.572
107 68.07 62 1.572
Product Material Packaging Surface Area, Thickness, Volume Description
Number Weight, g cm2 cm Material, cm3
226 TOTAL 25.19 707.91 0.07 27.03 Paperboard box, plastic/foil
PB Carton 16.82 425.860 0.045 18.993 tube. Recloseable
Plastic/foil tube 8.37 282.050 0.029 8.038 screw cap
227 TOTAL 16.02 558.51 0.07 19.34 Paperboard box,
PB Carton 10.79 382.420 0.038 14.379 plastic/foil tube. Recloseable
Plastic/foil tube 5.23 176.090 0.028 4.966 screw cap
228 TOTAL 10.36 324.54 0.07 10.95 Paperboard box,
PB Carton 5.90 172.850 0.039 6.655 plastic/foil tube. Recloseable
Plastic/foil tube 4.46 151.690 0.028 4.293 screw cap
229 TOTAL 18.31 368.60 0.07 23.64 Plastic self-standing laminate
Plastic tube 18.29 368.220 0.064 23.640 tube. Flip top cap. Foil seal.
foil seal 0.02 0.384 0.002 0.001
230 TOTAL 30.53 617.59 0.12 31.41 Plastic self-standing plastic
Plastic tube 28.44 273.880 0.109 29.743 tube. Foil/plastic bag inner.
foil seal 1.19 244.240 0.004 1.001 Plastic seal
Plastic seal 0.90 99.470 0.007 0.666
231 TOTAL 136.52 1651.81 0.18 147.88 Paperboard box,
PB Carton 34.79 814.680 0.054 44.156 Plastic 2-piece pump.
Plastic pump 101.73 837.130 0.124 103.720
C.38 Vegetable Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Uses per Serving Manufacturer Serving Calories/
Number Category Weight, g Weight, Weight, g container, Size, 100 cal Serving Size,g Serving
oz 100 cal basis basis
219 Vegetables W.M. 1360 48 1374 6.17 222.86 17 78 35
Bolthouse
Farms
1374 6.17 222.86 17 78 35
220 Vegetables W.M. 454 16 468 2.10 222.86 5 78 35
Bolthouse
Farms
468 2.10 222.86 5 78 35
222 Vegetables Spartan 453 16 467 1.92 242.86 5 85 35
467 1 .92 242.86 5 85 35
223 Vegetables Del 411 14.5 424 1.21 351.43 3.5 123 35
Monte
424 1.21 351.43 3.5 123 35
424 1.21 351.43 3.5 123 35
224 Vegetables Freshlike 234 8.25 248 0.62 400.00 2 120 30

 

21

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

248 0.62 400.00 2 120 30
248 0.62 400.00 2 120 30
225 Vegetables Freshlike 283.5 10 294 2.31 127.14 3 89 70
294 2.31 127.14 3 89 70
294 2.31 127.14 3 89 70
Product Material Packaging Surface Thickness. Volume Description
Number Weight, g Area, cm2 cm MaleflaL cm3
219 TOTAL 5.44 2027.37 0.003 5.68 LDPE bag
Plastic bag 5.44 2027.370 0.003 5.677
220 TOTAL 3.03 1180.06 0.00 3.30 LDPE bag
Plastic bag 3.03 1180.060 0.003 3.304
222 TOTAL 4.79 906.86 0.01 4.53 LDPE lap sealed bag
Plastic bag 4.79 906.860 0.005 4.534
223 TOTAL 54.67 733.65 0.05 23.49 2 piece steel can. Paper
2 piece can 52.12 466.900 0.045 21.197 label.
paper label 2.55 266.750 0.009 2.294
224 TOTAL 31.47 359.81 0.04 8.94 3 piece steel can. Paper label
3 piece can 30.09 208.970 0.038 7.857
paper label 1.38 150.840 0.007 1.086
225 TOTAL 18.41 1 101.40 0.04 22.89 Paperboard box,
PB box 13.78 513.230 0.038 19.297 foil/paper/plastic wrap.
Foil/Paper/Plastic outer 4.63 588.170 0.006 3.588
C.39 Water Product Group
Product Product Brand Name Label Label Measured Manufacturer Serving Size, Calories/
Number Category Weight. g Weight, fl Weight, m1 Serving m1 Serving
OZ
100 Water Evian 1500 50.7 1560 6 240 0
1560 6 0
101 Water Evian 1000 33 .8 1070 4 240 0
1070 4 0
102 Water Evian 2000 67.6 2320 8 240 0
2320 8 0
2320 8 0
104 Water Aquafina 2360 80 2442 10 240 0
2442 10 0
2442 10 0
105 Water Absopure 4020 1 36 4178 1 7 240 0
4178 17 0
106 Water Crystal Geyser 3000 100 3180 12 240 0
3180 12 0
3180 12 0
1 07 Water Absopure 4020 1 36 4255 8 240 0
4255 8 0
108 Water Country Fresh 3780 128 3945 15 240 0
3945 15 0
109 Water Country Fresh 9460 320 9950 39 240 0
9950 39 0

 

213

 

 

 

 

Product
Number

100

101

102

104

105

106

107

108

109

Material

TOTAL
Plastic bottle/cap
TOTAL
Plastic bottle/cap
TOTAL
4 Plastic bottle/cap
Paperboard
TOTAL
4 Plastic bottle/cap
Plastic ring holder
TOTAL
Plastic bottle/cap
TOTAL
6 Plastic bottle/cap
Outer plastic wrap
TOTAL
Plastic bottle
TOTAL
Plastic bottle
TOTAL
Plastic bottle

Packaging
Weight, g

41.60
41.60
33.23
33.23
129.27
79.55
49.72
120.62
116.77
3.85
122.60
122.60
137.39
125.50
11.89
105.30
105.30
60.86
60.86
212.27
212.27

Surface
Area, cm2

1414.64
1414.64
900.95
900.95
2478.46
1003.26
1475.2
3377.40
2877.88
499.52
4240.01
4240.01
5820.93
3689.1 1
2131.82
2587.22
2587.22
1583.80
1583.8
2176.61
2176.61

Thickness,

cm

0.0225
0.0225
0.0265
0.0265
0.0636
0.0227
0.0409
0.07
0.0305
0.0439
0.07
0.0669
0.03
0.0255
0.0056
0.03
0.0312
0.04
0.0427
0.10
0.095

Volume

Material,

cm3

31.83
31.83
23.88
23.88
83.1 1
22.77
60.34
109.70
87.78
21.93
283.66
283.66
106.01
94.07
1 1.94
80.72
80.72
67.63
67.63
206.78
206.78

Description

PET plastic bottle, plastic
screw closure

PET plastic bottle, plastic
screw closure

4 PET plastic bottles, 4 plastic
screw closures. Paperboard
carton holder

4 PET plastic bottles, 4 plastic
screw closures. Plastic ring
holder

PET gallon jug

6 PET bottles, 6 plastic closures
Bottles wrapped in outer plastic
wrap

PET bottle with handle

HDPE gallon jug

HDPE 2.5 gallon jug,
plastic spout

 

C.40 Yogurt Product Category

 

Product

Product Brand Name

Number Category

211

212

213

253

254

Yogurt

Yogurt

Yogurt

Yogurt

Yogurt

Dannon

Dannon

Dannon

Dannon
Duets

Yoplait

Label

Weight,g Weight, Weight,g container.

907

227

750

170

680

Label

02

32

26.4

24

Measured Uses per

 

918
918
918
918
237
237
237
237
761
761
761
178
178
178
694
694
694
694

Serving Manufacturer Serving C alories/
Size, 100 cal Serving Size,g Serving
100 cal basis basis
4.04 227.00 4 227 100
4.04 227.00 4 227 100
4.04 227.00 4 227 100
4.04 227.00 4 227 100
1.04 227.00 1 227 100
1.04 227.00 1 227 100
1.04 227.00 1 227 100
1.04 227.00 1 227 100
3.65 208.33 6 125 60
3.65 208.33 6 125 60
3.65 208.33 6 125 60
0.94 188.89 1 170 90
0.94 188.89 1 170 90
0.94 188.89 1 170 90
5.53 125.56 6 113 90
5.53 125.56 6 113 90
5.53 125.56 6 113 90
5.53 125.56 6 113 90

 

214

 

Product
Number

211

212

213

253

254

Material

TOTAL

Plastic cup

Plastic lid
Foil seal
TOTAL

Plastic cup

Plastic lid
Foil seal
TOTAL

6 Plastic cup
Plastic/foil seal

TOTAL

PS plastic tray
Plastic/foil seal

TOTAL

6 Plastic cups
6 Paper/plastic seals

PB carton

Packaging
Weight. g

36.78
27.43
7.73
1.62
13.22
10.65
1.79
0.78
32.34
30.66
1.68
14.46
13.69
0.77
62.10
37.44
1.84
22.82

cm2
785.32
525.080
146.970
1 13.270
360.67
203.850
104.440
52.380
1389.29
1 151.730
237.560
449.99
349.230
100.760
2151.03
1280.530
242.900
627.600

Surface Area. Thickness. cm

0.13
0.060
0.057
0.012

0.09
0.060
0.013
0.013

0.03
0.028
0.006

0.05
0.039
0.006

0.08
0.027
0.006
0.045

Volume

Material, cm3

41.12
31.347
8.407
1.371
14.33
12.272
1.358
0.702
33.14
31.788
1.354
14.27
13.690
0.584
63.75
34.318
1.506
27.928

Description

Polypropylene cup,
plastic lid. Foil seal

Polypropylene cup,
Polystyrene lid. Foil seal

6 PP plastic cups,
plastic/foil seals

Polystyrene tray,
plastic/foil laminant seal

6 PP plastic cups,
6 plastic/paper seals
Paperboard outer carton

 

215

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

216

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, Frank. “Analyzing the True Costs of Packaging”. BioCycle. April, 1993.
Vol. 34, No.4. Pg. 68-70.

“Addressing Source Reduction in the Northeast States”. Biocycle. March, 1996.
Anonymous. Vol.37, No.3. Pg.14.

Curran, Mary Ann. Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment. McGraw-Hill. New York,
New York. 1996.

“Demands on Packaging Keep on Stretching”. New Zealand Manufacturer. May, 1996.
Anonymous. Pg. 16.

De Young, Raymond. “Promoting Source Reduction Behavior: The Role of
Motivational Information”. Environment and Behavior. January, 1993. Vol.25,
No. 1. Pg.70-85.

Duda, Mark, and Jane S. Shaw. “Life Cycle Assessment”. Society.
November/December, 1997. Vol. 35, No. 1. Pg. 3843.

“EPA Predicts Drop in Waste Generation”. The American City & County. February,
1995. Anonymous. Vol. 110, No.2. Pg. 6.

EPA. “Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1997 Update”.
US. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 1998. EPA/530-R-98-007.

lEPA. “Report to Congress: Minimization of Hazardous Wastes”. US. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. 1976.

EPA. “Resource Recovery & Waste Reduction”. 3rd Report to Congress. US.

Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
1975.
Goldstein, Nora. “The State of Garbage — Part 1”. Biocycle. April, 1997. Pg. 60-67.
Goldstein, Nora. “The State of Garbage — Part 2”. Biocycle. May, 1997. Pg. 71-75.
Hendrickson, Chris. Arpad Horvath. Satish Joshi. Lester Lave. “Economic Input-

Output Models for Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment”. Environmental
Science & Technology. April 1, 1998. Vol. 32, No.1. Pg. 184A-191A.

217

 

Kim, Joo Ho. The Impact of the Increased Environmental Information t4hat Promote
Waste and Source Reduction on the Consumers’ Purchasing Behavior.
Dissertation. Cornell University. January, 1996.

Knoepfel, I. H. “The Importance of Energy in Environmental Life Cycle Assessments of
Packaging Materials.” Packaging Technology and Science.
November/December, 1994. Vol.7, No.6. Pg.261-272.

Lauzon, Cathy. Greg Wood. Environmentally Rwonsible Packaging — A Guide to
Develonment, Selection and Desigg PIRA International. Leatherhead. UK.
1995.

Levy, Geoffrey M.. Eric Johnson. Packaging in the Environment. Chapman & Hall.
Great Britain. 1993. Chapter 9.

Lignon, Paul J .. “Isolating the Cost of Excessive Packaging”. Biocycle. November,
1991. Vol. 32, No. 11. Pg. 68-70.

Manser, A.G.R.. Alan Keeling. Processing and Recycling Municipal Wa_s_t§_._ Lewis
Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida. 1996.

Moeger, Cathy Berg. “Source Reduction in Action”. Biocycle. April, 1994. Vol.35,
No.4. Pg. 38-39.

Nash, Jennifer, and Mark D. Stoughton. “Learning to Live with Life Cycle
Assessment”. Environmental Science and Technology. May, 1994. Vol. 28,
No.5. Pg.236A-237A.

Ottoman, Jacquelyn A.. “Growing Greener Packaging: Using Nature as a Stimulus for
Source Reduction”. Corporate Environmental Strategy. Spring, 1995. Vol. 2,
No. 4. Pg. 53-56.

Palmer, Karen. Hilary Sigman. Margaret Walls. “The Cost of Reducing Municipal Solid
Waste”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. June, 1997.
Vol.33, No. 2. Pg. 128-150.

Russell, Cate. “Source Reduction on a Budget.” Public Management. January, 1995.
Vol. 77, No. 1. Pg. 22-27.

Selke, Susan E. M.. Packaging and the Environment. Technomic Publishing Co.
Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 1994.

SETAC. A Technical Framework for Life-Cvcle Assessment. Workshop Report.
Washington DC. January, 1991.

218