.55 i ”
137521,.5. .
dean? ... ‘ Isak” . 4
.. .) .i.;xiu..u¢:. Us}
I r

< é
m3}. 2
25 {3.3,
I ‘1“. 7‘.
Em..-

 

are.

 

hung}. , . . . ‘ , : , , , .94hmwiaXnuvuvU I» I.
: 53,. , . . 5w
. .

E...)

 

ﬂﬁms UBRARY
l Michlg. . State
700-3” University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Assessment of the Environmental Proﬁle of PLA, PET and
PS Clamshell Containers using LCA Methodology

presented by

Santosh Madival

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Masters of degree in Packaging
Science

 

 

 

 

MWsor’s Signature

and [Ci/06°

 

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

. —..—._.an.—.—.—.—.-.—.—n-c-—-—.-.-.-.-—.-.—.-.-.—-.-—----.-.—.—.—-—n--_---n-—-—-.--..._ ..

 

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

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

AUG 3 1 2013

 

0617' 13

MAR 19 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K'IProlecc&PrelelRC/DateDue.indd

ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE OF PLA, PET, AND PS
CLAMSHELL CONTAINERS USING LCA METHODOLOGY

By

Santosh Madival

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
For the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Packaging

2008

ABSTRACT

Assessment of the Environmental Proﬁle of PLA, PET and PS Clamshell

Containers using LCA Methodology
By

Santosh Madival

Biobased polymers have noticeably grown in the past years as an environmental
and economical alternative to hydrocarbon based ones. For food packaging applications
biobased polymers have been found to have comparable mechanical and physical
properties to that of the petroleum based polymers. However, studies from environmental
impact standpoint from cradle to cradle, which compare their environmental
performance, are limited. In this work, the environmental proﬁle from cradle to gate,
grave and cradle of poly(lactic acid), PLA, a corn based material, poly(ethylene
terephthalate) ,PET, and poly(styrene), PS, as Clamshell containers for the packaging of
strawberries was compared by using available Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
methodology. The cradle to cradle analysis found PET to be the highest contributor for
global warming, ozone layer depletion, aquatic eutrophication, energy consumption and
land occupation, PLA for aquatic acidiﬁcation, respiratory organics and respiratory
inorganics and PS for aquatic ecotoxicity. PLA had the lowest energy consumption due to
the utilization of renewable energy during its resin production. The transportation system
and the distances between the resin producers, container manufacturers, the strawberry
exporter and the retail market play a major contributing role to the total burdens emitted
by the packages. The data gathered and presented in this work provide a basis to identify
and translate the environmental impact of these polymers based on the current inventory

data.

Dedication

TO GOD, MY FAMILY AND MY COUNTRY.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank God, my parents and my brothers, without whom I
wouldn’t have been writing this thesis. Next I’d like to thank Dr. Auras for accepting me
and giving me the opportunity to work on this project. I would also like to thank him for
all his guidance, support and understanding not only related to the project but also on the
social front. I should admit that I’ve learnt a lot from his work culture and his patience.
Thanks to CFPPR for their ﬁnancial support for the study. Thanks to Drs. S. P. Singh and
R. Narayan for all their valuable inputs and guidance. Thanks to Dr. Selke for all her
technical inputs for the project and giving me an opportunity for being her Teaching
Assistant. Thanks to Dr. Bruce Dale and Dr. Seungdo Kim for helping me with the
inventory data. Thanks to Chisa Brookes for her help on the inventory data. Thanks to
Lise Laurin of Earthshift® for her help with the SimaPro® software. Thanks to Dr.
Mohanty for giving me an opportunity to work as his T.A. Thanks to Gaurav Kale and
Sujeet Reddy for being good roommates and being there at all times. Thanks to Shailesh,
Sunil, Ajay, Gaurav Dhoot, Abhishek, Shoshana, Stacy, Matthias, Swaroop, Yash,
Aishwarya, Dr. Eva, Turk and Shantanu for their support and encouragement and the

research group members for help.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .................................................................................
List of Figures .................................................................................
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................... 1
Chapter 2: Literature review ............................................................. _ 4
2.1 Introduction ................................................................... 3
2.2 Packaging categories ......................................................... 6
2.2.1 Primary packaging .................................................. 6
2.2.2 Secondary packaging ............................................... 6
2.2.3 Tertiary packaging .................................................. 6
2.3 LCA in packaging ............................................................. 6
2.3.1 LCA in primary packaging ........................................ 7
2.3.2 LCA in secondary packaging ...................................... 12
2.3.3 LCA in tertiary packaging .......................................... 14
2.3.4 LCA for comparison of packaging systems and processes. . .. 16
2.3.5 LCA studies involving biopolymers ............................... 19
2.3.6 Comparative LCA studies on PLA ............................... 21
REFERENCES ................................................................... 24
Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................... 27
REFERENCES ................................................................... 32
Chapter 4: Assessment of the environmental profile of PLA, PET and PS
clamshell containers using LCA methodology ........................................ 34
4.1 Abstract ........................................................................ 34
4.2 Introduction ................................................................... 28
4.3 Goal, scope and functional unit of the study .............................. 37
4.4 Methods ........................................................................ 37
4.5 System boundaries ........................................................... 38
4.6 Data and data quality requirements ........................................ 40
4.6.1 Data sources and geography ............................................ 40
4.6.1.2 Production of containers ......................................... 40
4.6.1.3 Consumption stage ............................................... 41
4.6.1.4 Distances and transportation .................................... 41
4.6.1.5 End of life stages ................................................. 42
4.6.2 Allocation procedure ................................................... 43
4.7 Impact assessment ............................................................. 44
4.8 Results and discussion ....................................................... 45
4.8.1 Sensitivity analysis ....................................................... 49
4.8.2 End of life scenarios ..................................................... 52

4.9 Limitations and assumptions ................................................ 56

4.9.1 Resin production ........................... -. ......................... 56
4.9.2 Conversion process .................................................. 56
4.9.3 Transportation and distances ....................................... 57
4.9.4 End of life scenario .................................................. 58
5. Final remarks ................................................................... 58
REFERENCES ................................................................... 60

Chapter 5 Effect of distance and transportation on the environmental impact
of PLA, PET and PS containers .......................................................... 62
5.1 Introduction ................................................................... 62
5.2 Goal and scope .............................................................. . 63
5.3 System boundaries ........................................................... 63
5.4 Assumptions .................................................................. 63
5.5 Methods ........................................................................ 64
5.6 Results and discussion ........................................................ 64
REFERENCES ..................................................................... 69
Chapter 6 Conclusions ..................................................................... 70
Appendix A ................................................................................... 73
Appendix B .................................................................................... 75
Appendix C .................................................................................... 79
Appendix D ................................................................................... 80
Appendix E ................................................................................... 81
Appendix F .................................................................................... 82

vi

List of Tables

Table l.Life cycle burden values for 2,4,6,8 and 32 oz containers .............................. 8

Table 2.Comparative average impact category values for returnable plastic containers
(RPC) and corrugated paper trays (CPP) ....................................................................................... 12

Table 3.Secondary and tertiary packaging component weights and corrugated paper trays. . .13

Table 4.Comparison of the types of pallets ...................................................... 15
Table 5.The subsystem included in the production of tomato ketchup ...................... 17
Table 6.The packaging subsystem for the tomato paste and the ketchup ..................... 17

Table 7.Impact assessment results for different plastic products... ...... 22

Table 8.lmpact category values for 1000 containers of PLA, PET and PS ﬁlled with
strawbernes 47

Table 9.1mpact category values due to transportation of strawberry ﬁlled containers from
exporter to market by a 16 ton capacity truck ............................................................. 65

Table 10.Impact category values due to transportation of strawberry ﬁlled containers from
exporter to market by a 28 ton capacity truck ............................................................. 66

Table 11.1mpact category values due to transportation of strawberry ﬁlled containers from
exporter to market by a rail diesel locomotive ............................................................ 67

Table 12.Minimum distance values responsible for emitting 1 kg. equivalent of burdens
using a 16 and 28 ton capacity truck and a rail diesel locomotive........................................69

Table 13. Global warming values per ton.km transportation load for 16, 28 ton capacity truck
and rail diesel locomotive ..................................................................................... 74

vii

List of Figures

Figure] .General framework / phases of an LCA study ........................................ 27
Figure 2.Calculation format for impact assessment ............................................ 30

Figure 3.Life Cycle Inventory ﬂow chart for PLA, PET and PS thermoformed
containers ............................................................................................. 39

Figure 4.Normalized impact value comparing one PLA, PS and PET containers ......... 46

Figure 5.Carbon di oxide emission for cradle to cradle analysis of 1000 containers
of PLA, PET and PS ............................................................................... 53

Figure 6.Energy consumption for cradle to cradle analysis 1000 containers
of PLA, PET and PS ................................................................................ 55

(Images in this thesis are presented in color)

viii

Chapter 1: Introduction

The inherent beneﬁcial properties that uniquely separate plastics from other
packaging materials are their light weight, barrier properties and ease in processing and
converting into different forms and structures. These advantages make plastics the
material of choice for various applications. Over 20 billion pounds of plastic resin is
consumed annually in the United States (2004) [1]. The packaging industry in Europe
uses plastics for packaging, about 50% of their products [2]. This huge demand for
plastics directly affects the natural resources ore, since the traditional polymers are non
renewable hydrocarbon based polymers. The projected scarcity of fossil resources
intensiﬁes the need of a reliable and a promising alternative for plastics in the future
speciﬁcally for the packaging industry. Moreover, with the growing awareness for a clean
and better environment, bio-based products are now ﬁnding applications in fuels,
chemicals, construction, and an array of other products, packaging is no exception to that.
Studies have shown that bio polymers have comparable functional properties to that of
hydrocarbon based ones in terms of food packaging applications. In addition, they have
shown lesser environmental impacts as compared to the traditional petroleum based
polymers [3].

Out of the many available evaluation techniques, used to evaluate these polymers
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool, used to assess the environment viability of a
product, which considers the burdens generated by it during the various stages of its life
cycle. Various comparative LCA studies have been conducted in the packaging industry
involving materials, processes, packaging systems, involving economic aspects and waste

management criterions [4]. With the advent of biopolymers and LCA as an evolving tool,

a direct comparison between petroleum based polymers and biodegradable ones has been
possible. These comparisons have oriented to a more realistic and close approach towards
the environment feasibility of biodegradable polymers. Although there are limitations
within the LCA tool related to the boundary deﬁnition and interpretation of the study
being conducted, it introduces and guides the audience to scientiﬁc and technology based
facts which help them to understand the environment footprint of the system being
studied [4]. The objective of this thesis is to evaluate the environmental performance of
poly(lactic acid), PLA, poly(ethylene terephathalate), PET and poly(styrene), PS,
Clamshell containers for the packaging of strawberries using LCA methodology. Chapter
2 reviews the literatures regarding LCA studies for primary, secondary and tertiary
packaging and those involving PLA. The methodology followed for the evaluation of the
containers from cradle to grave and cradle to cradle is described in Chapter 3. Chapter 4
relates to a comparative LCA study between PET, PS and PLA Clamshell containers used
for packaging of strawberries. The study is from cradle to cradle for nine different impact
categories. It portrays the importance of transportation systems in the life cycle of the
three products, and the impacts contributed by it. Also this chapter quantiﬁes the burdens
generated through the different end of life options thereby striking a comparison with the
actual waste management culture. Chapter 5 speciﬁcally deals with transportation
scenario during the distribution of strawberry ﬁlled containers from the exporter to the
market. It emphasizes the importance of distances and transportation system in the
distribution chain of the life cycle of the three containers. Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes
the study ﬁndings with a guideline for future work in this research area suggesting further

improvements and changes.

References

l) Bohlmann. G. M, Biodegradable packaging life cycle assessment, Environmental progress, 23:
2004, pp 342-346.

2) Perugini. F, Mastallone. M. L, Arena. Umberto, A life cycle assessment of mechanical and
feedstock Recycling options for management of plastic packaging wastes, Environmental
progress, Vol. 24, No.2, July 2005, pp 137 ~154.

3) Narayan. R, Drivers and rationale for use of biobased materials based on life cycle
assessment (LCA) in Global Plastics Environmental Conference 2004, Atlanta, GA.

4) Martino. D, LCA - A critical review and estimation of its uncertainity in the comparative
evaluation of Packaging systems, Doctoral thesis School of Packaging, Michigan State
University, 2005.

Chapter 2: Literature review

2.1 Introduction

The basic function of packaging is to protect and preserve natural or artiﬁcially
manufactured or processed foods from spoilage simultaneously giving the package a
shelf appeal with its aesthetics. The packaging domain primarily consists of raw material
manufacturers, the converters and the users which include the distribution network from
the wholesalers and retailers to the consumers [1]. In the entire system, the role of
packaging is an integral one which cannot be disregarded or undermined, but at the same
time one cannot neglect to observe the environmental burdens that a package emits
during its journey from its production to the waste stream. In the year 2004, Australia
generated 3.3 million tons and in 2005 Europe produced an annual packaging waste of
56.3 million tons [2]. In the year 2006, USA generated about 251 million tons of annual
packaging waste [3]. The awareness of similar observations over the years has given rise
to the concept of sustainable packaging [4]. Sustainability in packaging consists of three
basic elemental ﬁmctions- the social, the economic and the environment. Packaging
enters the society by being an integral part of the supply chain which not only protects
and preserves the product but also informs and guides a regulated consumer behavior.
Packaging design controls the entire packaging system, which also includes
transportation, the handling and the storage system [5]. The number of packaging
components used in a package, the type of materials involved, the process ability, its end
of life scenario and the overall energy and resource utility are the factors which directly

affect the economy and the environmental aspects of the packaging system.

Among the number of environmental impact evaluation techniques available, Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) is regarded as an important tool which is used to determine a
balance between the natural resources and the human activity through a comparative
study and thus focusing exclusively on the ideologies of sustainable development [5].
LCA has been able to prove that materials which were once considered recyclable and
‘environment friendly’, in fact put more burdens on the environment when the issues
related to it such as energy, materials , process inputs, transportation and the recycling
options were taken into consideration [6].Therefore, LCA has emerged as a tool, which
has generated a new trend of looking at products from the resources point of view not
only in their optimization but also re-use and recycle to obtain the maximum output [4].
Unlike other conventional techniques, LCA gives a clearer and a better picture of a
product’s effect on the environment since it deals typically with the entire life cycle of
the system under study [5]. Appendix A presents a glossary of the LCA terminology.

The traditional LCA has given birth to a whole new application of LCA called
Life Cycle Product Design (LCPD). The framework of LCPD is based on designing a
product taking an account various criteria such as product’s technical performance, the
legislative regulations, the safety, health and environment limit requirements, its
distribution in the market, and ﬁnally the consumers and their requirements [6]. However,
this modiﬁcation is still developing with some work already done in the past. LCA has
been successfully applied to a varied number of sectors including chemicals, construction,
energy, automobile, electronics, textiles, packaging and an array of products [6]. The

following paper will primarily focus on the review of LCA studies in the packaging

industry emphasizing speciﬁcally on primary, secondary and tertiary packaging and

studies involving biopolymers.

2.2 Packaging categories
Basically, packages consist of three different functional categories

0 Primary Packaging

0 Secondary Packaging

0 Tertiary Packaging
Primary Packaging: Primary packaging is the ﬁrst wrap, which is in direct contact with
the product.
Secondary Packaging: Secondary package is the containment of a primary package.
Tertiary Packaging: Tertiary packaging, also known as the distribution package, contains
several units of secondary packages [1].

The packaging industry is basically categorized as the suppliers and the users. The
suppliers further are divided into converters, which convert the raw material into the
desired package geometry, service providers which include testing, marketing,
consultancy, graphic designers and lastly the machinery manufacturers. The user industry
comprises consumer packaging, which include food, beverage, pharmaceuticals,
hardware, personal care, toys, cosmetics, industrial packaging, which include bulk food,
chemicals, electronic devices, and ﬁnally institutional packaging, which include food,
non food, military supplies and medical devices [6]. The above mentioned categories deal
directly or indirectly with the functional categories of packaging in the form of primary,

secondary and tertiary packaging

2.3 LCA IN PACKAGING

LCA has been historically applied to these mentioned packaging categories for
different applications. Studies evidently, can be found to assess the environmental
performance of different packaging materials like paper, glass, plastics, steel, aluminmn,
and wood and for different forms like plastic containers, metal cans, glass bottles,
ﬂexibles, paper and board boxes, composites, pallets and a plethora of geometric
structures. Most of the studies found in packaging are comparative studies which
determined the environment viability of an option among its contemporaries for a
common application. The contemporaries’ not necessary being of the same material but
could be of different materials and forms which execute a common function. According
to Martino (2005), the evolution of LCA in packaging emerged out of a study which
came up in the late 1960’s and the early 1970’s by Harry Teasley of Coca-Cola. The
study was done on beverage containers and was conducted by Midwest Research Institute.
In the year 1981, Gaines and in 1985 Lundholm and Sundstrom continued the trend of
studies for the Resource and Environmental proﬁle Analyses (REPA) which were used
for decision and policy making [6, 8]. These studies typically were based on raw material
demands, energy inputs and waste generation ﬂows, which later on revolutionized and
evolved as an important tool of LCA methodology dealing on sophisticated analysis

through environment analysis [8].

2.3.1 LCA in primary packaging
LCA studies in primary packaging are very varied depending speciﬁcally on the

goal of the study. Keoleian et a1 (2004) carried out a study for a yoghurt delivery system.

It compared the packaging system that used polypropylene (PP) cups of 2, 4, 6, 8 and 32
02 capacity for packaging and delivering yoghurt. The study found that the energy
consumption for manufacturing 32 oz containers were the lowest while that of 8 oz
containers was the highest for a functional unit of 1000 lbs of yoghurt. Furthermore, the
energy consumption during the container manufacturing was a little more than half of the
total life cycle energy, while one-third was used during yoghurt distribution stage. It
concluded that the amount of solid waste generated was inversely proportional to the
weight of the containers. Evidently as the 32 oz container was the best option among the
other containers, a further improvement of reduction of energy consumption and solid
waste by one ﬁfth of the total was also calculated if the manufacttu'ing of the 320z
container would be carried out by thermoforming instead of injection molding [9 The
emission values associated with the life cycle of each of the container are as given in
Table 1.The air emission and water emission values are found to be lowest for the 32 oz
containers, while the water consumption during its manufacturing just seems to highest.

Table 1: Life cycle burden values for 2,4,6,8 and 32 oz containers, adapter from Keoleain et al (2004)
[9]-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Impact . 2 oz 4 oz 6 oz 8 oz 32 oz
Unrts
catggory
Air emission
except C02 gms. 3280 3420 3440 3000 2610
Wat.“ gms. 1410 1270 1200 1050 899
emrssrons
Its. 1150 3550 3080 2560 3590
Water use
Global
warming Kg' C02 226 256 240 209 195
potential
Ozone m
depletion g' 8.83 6.60 5.05 4.13 3.05
. CFC-11
potential

 

Zabaniotou et a1 (2003) carried out a comparative LCA study to determine the
performance of eggcups for packaging of eggs made from polystyrene (PS) and recycled
paper. They found that throughout the life cycle PS eggcups contributed mainly to global
warming, acidiﬁcation, winter smog and summer smog impact categories, while recycled
paper cups had high values for heavy metals and winter smog. A further comparison
showed that PS had more energy consumption than recycled paper and emitted more air
emissions and liquid waste, while the latter had higher emissions for some organic and
dissolved inorganic chemicals and generated comparatively higher solid wastes than PS.
Overall, the study concluded recycled paper eggcups to be more environment friendly
than PS eggcups [10]. A similar study for paper cups was carried out by Garrido et a1
(2007). He compared single-use PP cups with the reusable ones. The cups were of
different dimensions with the functional unit of 1000 It of beverage distribution. For the
reusable cups he considered different scenarios in which the cups were used for 2, 9, 10,
and 14 cycles before they were disposed. This study was from cradle to grave including
transportation. On the basis of different assumptions for transportation and waste
management options for ten different impact categories, they found that the reusable cups
with a cycle of 10 had the least contribution to the overall environmental impact. The
main contributing factor for the single use cups came from the production of PP resins
and the fabrication processes for the cups. They also found that as the number of reuse
cycles increased the waste generation and the overall environmental effect decreased, but
the impact category values for the ozone layer depletion, heavy metals and carcinogens
increased due the emissions coming from the washing and cleaning processes involved

during the reuse operations. Also there was a subsequent increase in the electricity

consumption associated with the washing and reuse activities [11]. Improvements in the
beverage sector in Norway using LCA methodology was carried by Hanssen et al (2007).
They studied the Norwegian scenario for two different criterions. Impacts based on per
litre consumption of beverage and per total volume beverage sale per capita for the year
2000. For the two impact categories, global warming and energy consumption, they
found that the packaging system was the most efﬁcient and a low contributor stage in the
beverage life cycle in Norway. This was related to the fact that 95% of the packaging
used was on a returnable basis which were reused and recycled. However the beverages
which used cartons as the packaging material had scope for improvement since the
recyling rates for these materials were comparatively lower than others. Overall, the
production of raw materials used for beverage production was most responsible for the
total burden and packaging was just one tenth of the total impact [12].

Petcore, the European trade association for promoting the growth and
development of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) containers, carried out a study to
determine the performance of a reﬁllable glass bottle and one way PET bottle under
kerbside collection situation and for deposits. Since the soft drinks and mineral water
market was dominated by the 1.5 It PET bottle and 0.7 It glass bottle, the study compared
these two packaging materials with a functional unit of 1000 It units of each for eight
impact categories. Both under the kerbside collection and deposits PET bottle had
comparatively high impact values for terrestrial eutrophication, summer smog, summer
smog (NOx —corr.), and use of nature while it showed beneﬁt over glass for global
warming, fossil resources and aquatic eutrophication. For acidiﬁcation, PET had a beneﬁt

over glass for deposits.

10

The study concluded that one way PET bottles had equal advantages than that of
glass bottle and also that PET would be more environmentally viable if used under
kerbside collection than rather under the deposit system. [1 3]. Lehmann et a1 carried out a
comparative LCA on beverage bottles made of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and
PET in Sweden. This study was from cradle to cradle and considered eight impact
categories. It found that even though PET had higher impact values for categories like
carcinogens, radiation, ecotoxicity, land use and minerals HDPE had overall a higher
environmental impact than PET. They also concluded that even though PET had higher
impact values for some categories, it was environmentally preferred for the bottle
applications since it was reusable [14]. A different LCA study for the packaging of paints
was carried out by Bushby (1994) for RPC Containers Ltd, Leics England. He compared
a 5 1t capacity polypropylene (PP) container to that of tinplate can of same capacity.
Despite the assumption that the tinplate can contained 25% recycled material, PP
container was found to have lesser environmental impacts and its total energy
consumption throughout its life cycle was 60% to that of the tinplate can [15]. A similar
non food application of LCA study conducted by Bovea et al (2006) was for the
packaging system of ceramic tiles. They studied the primary packaging in terms of
corrugated box and tertiary packaging in terms of pallets for six impact categories. They
found the raw material acquisition stage, for corrugated box, to have the highest impact
that the other stages followed by the packaging process and the distribution operation.
Since the pallets were reusable they had a comparatively lesser environmental impact.
They further calculated that a reduction in the thickness of the corrugated box from 3 to

1.5 mm would require 11.5% lesser amount of raw material. A further decrease in the

11

amount of adhesive applied by applying through dots rather than a line was also found to
have 64% lesser adhesive consumption and about 23% reduction in the energy
consumption. Both the modiﬁcations had an affect on the total weight of packaging and
raw material utility, thereby directly affecting the packaging and transportation system of
the ceramic tiles [l6]. Singh et a1 (2006) applied LCA methodology to reusable plastic
containers (RPC) and corrugated paper trays (CPP) for the application of packaging of
fresh produce. The study was from cradle to grave including transportation and covered
the North American market as the geographical scope. They studied the system for 10
different fruits and vegetables packed in containers of different sizes and shapes. The
plastic containers which were a traditional package in the many of the European countries
consumed 39% less energy than the paper ones. Not only did it generate 95% less solid
waste since they were non reusable unlike the plastic containers, but also it had a lesser
impact on the climate change by contributing 29% less to greenhouse gas emission [17].

An overview of the results is shown in table 3.

Table 2: Comparative average impact category values for returnable plastic containers (RPC) and
corrugated paper trays (CPP) (2006) [ l 7].

 

 

 

 

 

 

Greenhouse gas Energy. Solid waste
Fresh product . . consumption
emrssron (kg 002) (million BTU) generated (tons)
i: * **
PC/**CPT *PC/**CPT PC/ CPT
Apples 62.7 / 67.1 853 / 1073 1.35 / 25.3
Bell peppers 81.3 / 113.0 1121 /1818 1.99 / 43.2

Carrots 37.8 / 61.1 531 /981 1.04 / 23.4
Grapes 78.3 / 120.0 1080 / 1920 2.15 / 45.5
Lettuce 65.9 / 92.8 905 / 1485 1.53 / 35.1

12

Table 2: (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

Oranges 46.6/ 76.9 650/ 1241 1.23 / 30.2
Peaches 49.0 / 80.1 671 / 1284 1.25 / 30.5
Onions 38.2 / 67.0 533 / 1075 1.09 / 25. 7
Tomatoes 57.5 / 77.0 797 / 1241 1.57/30.1
Strawberries 145.0 / 155.0 1975 / 2455 4.03 / 55.6

 

* Plastic containers
"Corrugated paper trays
2.3.2 LCA in secondary packaging

Keoleian et a1 (2004) apart from comparing different sizes of Polypropylene cups
for yoghurt packaging focused on the environmental load generated by secondary
packaging like corrugated boxes and tertiary packaging like wooden pallets. The life
cycle for the boxes and pallets was studied from cradle to grave which excluded the
conversion (conversion of corrugated board into boxes and wood into pallets) stage. This
also included the transportation stage from the yogurt ﬁller to the distributor. The
secondary packaging life cycle with the distribution could be referred to as the
distribution phase. They found that the secondary packaging production accounted for
55% of the total energy during the distribution phase and 15% of the total LCA study.
Out of remaining 45%, the total energy consumed by secondary packaging during
transportation was 3% while the rest was mainly due to yoghurt and primary packaging.
Out of the various factors responsible for the energy consumption, the weight of the
product and packages was one of the prime factors. Table 2 gives a brief idea of the
comparative weights for the secondary and tertiary packaging components included in the

study [9].

l3

Table 3: Secondary and tertiary packaging component weights adapted from Zabanitou et al (2003)
[9]-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Product Components Component Pﬁgilrg
unit Packaging Units / Weight per weight per egr-
oz component packagc (g) functional functional funEtional
unit unit (g) .
unrt (g)
2 “gamed 96 243 83.33 20.250 21484
wooden 1 19808 18144 0.07 1212
pallet
LLDPE
Stretch wrap 119808 331 0.07 22
4 “gamed 24 158 166.67 26.333 41729
w°°den 4800 18144 0.83 15120
pallet
LLDPE
Stretch wrap 4800 331 0.83 276
6 “gamed 12 132 222.25 29337 44002
W°°den 3360 18144 0.79 14402
pallet
LLDPE
Stretch wrap 3360 331 0.79 263
8 “gamed 12 137 166.67 22833 41 162
W°°den 2016 18144 0.99 18000
pallet
LLDPE
Stretch wrap 2016 331 0.99 328
32 corrugated 6 188 83.33 15667 27510
Box
W°°den 780 18144 0.64 11631
pallet
LLDPE
Stretch wrap 780 331 0.64 212

 

Anon (1998) conducted a study where the performance of corrugated board was

compared to plastic crates and the entire system was evaluated for distribution packaging.

He concluded that the new board system, a double corrugated board with impregnated

l4

ﬂuting, was 30% better than the old system, a single corrugated board, in terms of LCA
impacts [18]. A different type of study in case of corrugated board was done where in a
LCA software program was described which determined the environmental effects of the

board during different stages of its production [1 9].

2.3.3 LCA in tertiary packaging

Studies on LCA studies of tertiary packaging are very few. Lee et al (2004)
compared the conventional wooden pallets to that of thermoformed HDPE pallets. The
study was conducted from cradle to grave with a functional unit of one pallet. The impact
assessment method chosen was EPS 2000 Default Method which expresses the impacts in
a single impact unit called the Environmental load unit (ELU).They concluded that the
impact generated by the wooden pallets was three times higher than that of the HDPE
ones [20]. A similar study was found which compared the performance of pallets made
from wood, steel, virgin HDPE, and two recycled HDPE pallets of different recycled
material composition. The study found that the wooden pallet and the virgin HDPE pallet
had similar burdens and both had about 53% and 74% respective higher impacts than the
recycled HDPE pallets ones. Table 3 shows the different criteria considered for the pallet

comparison [21].

15

Table 4: Comparison of the types of pallets adapted from Cardo et al (2004) [21].

 

Weight of No of Nominal Required
pallet (%) pallet trlps/ Load no of

(Kg) cycles capacity pallets
Wooden Pallet w°°d '98'3 23 17 1 294

Pallet Type Composrtlon of

 

Steel -1 .7
100

Virgin HDPE -

Vlrgln Pallet 100

18 50 1

 

Recycled pallets
-90
Recycled HDPE Recycled 1 8 50 1 100
HDPE-9.6
Phenol- 0.4

 

Recycled pallets
-50
Plastic Recycled HDPE
RECYPALLET — 27.49
*GFRP-l 5
Additives- 7.51

 

*Glass ﬁber reinforced PET

Brookes et a1 (2005) conducted an LCA study comparing foams made from starch
and polyethylene. The scope of the study was ﬁom cradle to grave excluding the
common consumption and transportation stages for eight impact categories and a
functional writ of amount of foam required for packaging 50,000 laptops. They found that
the Polyethylene (PE) foam production system predominantly had higher impact values
than the starch foam production system in all the categories. They further concluded that
PE foams required eighteen times the energy required by starch foams [22]. Coltro et al
(2000) conducted a study on the energy modeling for Brazil for the production of
different packaging systems consisting of primary, secondary and tertiary packaging
materials. He found that the electric energy use represented only 10-15% of the total

energy consumed by the packaging industries considered and also that the energy

16

production in Brazil was a clean process [23]. A popular and traditional method of
packaging and transporting fresh produce such as fruits and vegetables is through wooden
crates. Lelievre (1999) studied the packaging system for the transportation system for
fruits and vegetables using wooden crates. The study was from the production of crates to
the end of life disposal with different end of life alternative scenarios. She emphasized
transportation during distribution stage to be the most contributing factor towards the air
emissions. The transportation stage also accounted for 90% of the total energy consumed
during its life cycle journey. She found several advantages with reusing the crates rather
than dmnping or recovering them. Incineration also had some reduction in the global
warming and energy consumption values but concluded reuse to be the best alternative

among the end of life options [24].

2.3.4 LCA for comparison of packaging systems and processes

Andersson et al ( 1998) did a study on the different stages of life cycle of tomato
ketchup manufacturing and different subsystems for these processes were studied, one of
which was packaging. The following table shows the summary of the systems studied for

the tomato ketchup production [25].

17

Table 5: The subsystem included in the production of tomato ketchup adapted from Andersson et al

 

 

(1998) [25].
Subsystems Processes included m the Investigated cases
system
. Tomato and sugar beet
Agrl culture cultivation '

 

Production of tomato paste,

. raw sugar, sugar solution,
Food processmg . . . -
Vlnegar, splce, emulsron salt

 

 

 

and ketchup.
P‘Oduft‘o" and Disposal — Landﬁll,
. transportatlon processes . . . .
Packaglng . 1nc1neratlon, recycllng and
related to packaging of ener recove
tomato paste and ketchup. gy ry.
Transportation All transportatlon except for _
packaglng subsystem
Shopping House hold Transportatlon of ketchup Storage tlme 1)One month

from retailer to end. user 2) One year.

 

Table 6: The packaging subsystem for the tomato paste and the ketchup Andersson et al (1998) [25].

 

 

 

Tomato aste acka in .
gysterll g g Ketchup packaging system
Plastic materials - landﬁll. Corrugated
Case 1 Steel barrels, plastic materials cardboard :
and wood pallets - landﬁll 80% - recycling 20% - landﬁll
Wood pallets : reused 100 trips- landﬁll
. LDPE — incineration
Steel barrel- 70% recycllng 30% PP- 80% incineration 20% landﬁll.
landﬁll' Co t d db ard SO‘V e of d
Case 2 PP- 80% incineration 20%- rruga e 233; (i . °.r cy lng an
landﬁll o - lnc1neratlon.

Wood pallets reused 100 trips-

Wood pallets — incineration . . .
1nc1neratlons.

 

The conclusion of the study was that most of the impact categories had packaging
and food processing systems as the main sources. For one year storage period the primary
energy usage for household subsystem would be considered equal to the packaging and

food processing subsystems. Agriculture subsystem was the main source of

18

eutrophication. For toxicity, the agriculture, the food processing and packaging
subsystems were found to be highest [25]. Thrane et al (2006) studied the environmental
effect for the life cycle of Danish ﬁsh products. They found that the ﬁshing stage was the
most contributing factor for the eight different impact categories that they considered.
However, for some types of ﬁsh products like pickles which used glass and aluminium as
the packaging material the processing stage was a signiﬁcant consideration for the

impacts especially the energy consumption [26].

Similar study was carried out by Saouter et a1 (2001) on LCA of detergents and had a
similar conclusion that packaging was responsible for a higher impact on the environment
throughout the system of the life cycle of the detergent [27]. Amelia et al (1995)
evaluated speciﬁcally the recycling efﬁciency for aluminum, steel, paper, glass and high
density polyethylene, Poly vinyl chloride (PVC) and for PET bottles. She found that, if
life cycle evaluation considers the combination of external costs with the private costs,
then it would be helpful in determining the actual relative cost of the different recycling
schemes which eventually would help in the development of sustainable waste
management. End of life disposal is an integral part of a product’s life cycle. With
different options such as landﬁlling, incineration, composting, reusing and recycling an
entire new genre of processes can be identiﬁed associated with these different scenarios
[28]. Perugini et al (2005) carried an LCA study to examine the recycling of PET and PE
liquid containers for ﬁve different scenarios. Out of the ﬁve mechanical recycling was a
realistic scenario which represented the Italian scenario, for which the study was
primarily carried out. Two scenarios were hypothetical ones which were landﬁlling and

incineration. The remaining two were considered as future possible alternatives which

19

were mechanical recyling with low temperature pyrolysis and hydrocracking of the
polyoleﬁn fraction. The system boundaries were from collection of the waste through
different processes involved to polymer reprocessing which also included transportation
at various stages. They found that the landﬁll and incineration had the most impacts for
all the six impact categories while the mechanical recycling having the most beneﬁts for
greenhouse gas emission, organic air emission, water consmnption and waste
consumption and the mechanical recyling with hydro cracking, being the most beneﬁcial

for crude oil consumption and energy consumption [29].

2.3.5 LCA studies involving biopolymers

The evolution of bio based polymers and their successful applications in
packaging in various forms have created a heavy demand for them in the market which
has qualiﬁed them to be compared with the conventional hydrocarbon based polymers.
Bio based polymers like the Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) and Polylactic acid (PLA)
have been successful in ﬁnding applications in the form of ﬁlms and containers for
packaging. The comparison of these renewable resource bio based polymers and the non
renewable resource petroleum based polymers have led to a few LCA studies which
provide evidence of the environment viability of these polymers [7]. Kim et a1 (2005)
conducted a study on the green house effect on the production of biomass and bio based
products which estimated the global warming impact on the production of corn, soybeans
and switchgrass, and he found that the cumulative energy requirement for producing and
transporting corn was 1.99- 2.66 MJ/kg, for soybeans it was 1.98-2.04 MJ/Kg,l.24 and

0.97-1.34 MJ/Kg for switchgrass .He also found that the global warming impact for com

20

was highest followed by soybeans and switchgrass [30]. Dornburg et a1 (2003) studied
the energy savings and greenhouse gas emission between biobased polyners and that of
bio based energy on the agricultural land use. They concluded that in case of biobased
polymers if land use is used as a basis of comparison for the study then the results of the
study changes signiﬁcantly [31]. On a hectare basis vn'th residue utilization bio based
polymers like the ﬁber composites and PLA were better in temls of energy savings and
Greeen house gas (GHG) emission reduction than bioenergy production from energy
crops except for PHA which was found to be worse while on comparison on a per hectare
basis with residue utilization even PHA was better for bioenergy production. Vink et al
(2003) determined the gross energy contribution for production of PLA from com. This
study also compared production of PLA from corn and biomass with the petroleum based
polymers and it focused on the potential improvement in reducing the emissions using
the biomass scenario The study was helpful in determining that PLA production systems
generally outperform the traditional petroleum based polymers in terms of green house
gas emissions and energy use [32]. Vink et al (2007) provided the life cycle inventory
data for PLA production. The study consisted of inventory emission values for factory to
gate situation for PLA production during the year 2006. They also provided the data
which is expected to be emitted aﬁer the implementation of their new improved
technology. The details of the new technology were not disclosed for proprietary reasons.
However, they claimed that the new technology would require lesser amounts of dextrose,
lime, sulphuric acid, steam, and natural gas and also produce comparatively lesser
amounts of co-products [33]. Kim et al (2005) estimated the environmental performance

of PHA production based on corn grain and corn grain and corn stover They found that

21

production of PHA with corn stover was more environmentally viable than production
with corn [34].A different study conducted by James et a1 (2005) compared shopping
bags made out of degradable material and the other alternatives such as petroleum based
polymeric bags, paper based bags and calico bags. The study was from cradle to grave,
excluding the consumption stage of the bags and considered ﬁve different impact
categories. They found that the biodegradable bags had similar burdens than the HDPE
bags for green house and eutrophication and lower impact for abiotic resource depletion.
Kraft paper being the highest contributor for all the impact categories and PLA being the

second highest contributor for greenhouse and eutrophication [3 5]

2.3.6 Comparative LCA studies on PLA

Hakala et a1 (1997) evaluated diapers made from PLA and combination of PP and
PE. The study had come with an outcome that there was no much difference in the
impacts between the conventional diapers and the biodegradable ones [36]. A
comparative study by Bohlmann et al (2004) on thermoformed containers made from
PLA and PP for packaging of yoghurt was done. This study was from cradle to grave and
took the end of life for both the system as landﬁll. The study found that PLA was more
energy efﬁcient than PP as far as thermoformed containers were concerned [3 7].

Detzal et al (2006) compared PLA clarnshell containers with those made from
PET, PP and PS. The study was done exclusively for the German market and the
environment assessment was based on eight impact categories which were Fossil fuel
consumption, global warming, acidiﬁcation, terrestrial eutrophication, aquatic

eutrophication, summer smog, and human toxicity. The scope of this study covered the

22

production of the polymers, production of clamshells, the recycling and disposal of the
used packages. Transportation of the resins to the converters and transportation to the
recycling and disposal sites were also included. They concluded that PLA had advantages
than the hydrocarbon based polymers for fossil resource consumption, global warming,
and summer smog, while it had disadvantages for acidiﬁcation, terrestrial eutrophication
and human toxicity when compared to PS and PP and for terrestrial and aquatic
eutrophication when compared to PET. For aquatic eutrophication it showed advantages
with PP and disadvantages with PS and PET [38]. A similar study was carried out by
Franklin Associates, KS (2006) for Athena Institute, Canada whereby different plastic
products made from hydrocarbon and bio-based resins was compared. The following

table illustrates a brief overview of the study ﬁndings [39]

Table 7: Impact assessment results for different plastic products [39].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Products Materials Functional Energy Solid waste Greer;l;ouse
compared used unit requirement generation g .
emrssrons
PET
16 oz cold PLA, 10 000 PET >PLA>PP. PLA and >PLA>PP.
drink cu s **HIPS,PP ch 3 *PLA = HIPS PET > PP *PLA =
p and PET 1’ and HIPS HIPS
1.6 07‘ “”9 PLA’ 10,000 PET >PLA. PLA and PEDPEA
plece dell *"GPPS and containers PLA>GPPS PET *PLA '
containers. PET GPPS
Envelope 1 ,OO0,000 * =
windows PLA and sq. in. of *PLA=GPPS PLA>GPPS PLA
GPPS . GPPS
ﬁlm 1.15 ml
Foam meat PLA and 10,000 * = *PLA=GPP *PLA=GPP
trays GPPS trays PLA GPPS S S
1202 water 1 0’000
PLA and PET water *PET=PLA *PET=PLA PET > PLA
bottles
bottles
* Not signiﬁcantly different.
** High Impact Polystyrene.

"*General purpose polystyrene

23

Very few, cradle to cradle, LCA studies comparing Clamshell containers made of PLA
and those of traditional hydrocarbon based polymers were found [3 8,39]. Existing studies
did consider transportation, but not all of the transportation stages were included in the
scope of their study. Also the distribution network was kept out of their system
boundaries. Transportation operations contribute largely to the total impacts generated
during the life cycle of the polymers. This thesis presents a cradle to cradle LCA study
for thermoformed Clamshell container made of PLA, PET and PS used for packaging of
strawberries which also quantiﬁes emissions generated due to the transportation
operations, at all the stages including distribution. A separate study analyzing the effect

of distance and type of transport vehicle on the emission is also presented in this thesis.

24

References:

l) Soroka.W, Fundamentals of Packaging Technology, Warrington. Richard,
Virginia, 23-38 pp, 1995.

2) Kale. G, Kijchavengkul. T, Auras. R, Rubino. M, Selke. S.E, Sher Paul Singh.
An overview of compostability of bioplastic packaging materials, Macromolecular
Bioscience, 7 (3) (2006) pp 255-277.

3) EPA, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States:
Facts and Figures for 2006. 2006, Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpleubs/lnsw06.pdf accessed on
03/31/08.

4) Lee. S. G, Xu. X, Design for the environment: Life Cycle assessment and Sustainable
packaging issue, International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Vol. 5,
No.1, 2005, pp 14-41.

5) Sonneveld. K, James. K, Fitzpatrick. L, Lewis H, Sustainable Packaging: How do We
Measure it?, 22nd IAPRI symposium,. Brazil June 2005, pp. 1-9.

6) Azapagic, A., Emsley, A., Hamerton, I., “Design for the environment: The life Cycle
approach in Polymers — The environment and sustainable development, pp. 125-153, 2003.

7) Narayan. R, Drivers and rationale for use of biobased materials based on life cycle
assessment (LCA), Global Plastics Environmental Conference 2004, Atlanta.,GA.

8) Martino. D, LCA — A critical review and estimation of its uncertainity in the comparative
evaluation of Packaging systems, Doctoral thesis School of Packaging, Michigan State
University, 2005

9) Keoleian. G. A, Phipps. A.W, Dritz. T, Brachfeld. D, Life cycle environmental performance
and improvement of a yoghurt product delivery system, Packaging technology and science,
1722004 pp 85-103.

10) Zabaniotou. A, Kassidi. A, Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging made from
polystyrene and recycled paper, Journal of cleaner production ,1 1:549 — 559, 2003.

1 l) Garrido. N, Alvarez del Castillo MD, Environmental evaluation of single use and reusable
cups, International Journal of LCA, 12 (4), 2007, pp 252 -256.

12) Hanssen . O. J, Rukke. E. O, Saugen. B, Kolstad J, Hafrom. P, Von Krogh. L, Raadal. H.L ,

Ronning. A, Wigum. K. S, The Environment Eﬂectiveness of the Beverage sector in Norway
in factor 10 perspective, International Journal of LCA, 12(4) pp 257 — 265.

25

13)

14)

15)

l6)

17)

18)

19)

20)

21)

22)

23)

24)

25)

26)

PET container recycling Europe, World largest PET Life cycle assessment — One way PET

levels with reﬁllable glass, Available at www.petcore.org/content/default.asp?pagelD=67

September 2004 (accessed June 1, 2006.)

Lehmann. B, Vilaplana. F, Strbmberg. E., Suliman. W, Cerrato. L. R, Comparative LCA on.
Plastic Packaging, Available at
http://www.infra.kth.se/fms/utbildning/lca/project%20reports/Group%202%20-
%20Plastic_packaging.pdf. 25 May 2005.

Bushby. B, Putting the case for plastics, Polymers Paint Color Journal, March 23 1994,
Volume 184, No. 4346, pp 133.

Bovea. M.D, Serrano. J, Bruscas. G. M, Gallardo A, Application of life cycle assessment to
improve the environmental performance of a ceramic tile packaging, Packaging technology
and Science,l9, 2006,pp 83 — 95.

Singh. S. P, Chonhenchob. V, Singh. J, Life cycle inventory and analysis of reusable
plastic containers and display ready corrugated containers used for packaging ﬂesh
Packaging technology and science, 19, 2006, pp 279 — 293.

Anon., Corrugated board new concept competes with plastic crates, Pack Marknaden., 12,
pp 17, 1998.

De Beaufort, ASH, Stahel, U., LCA software tool for corrugated board. Bringing LCA
within the easier reach of industry, International Journal Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 3.,
no 6, 1998 pp 317-320.

Lee. S. G,. Xu. X, A simpliﬁed life cycle assessment of reusable and single use bulk
transit Packaging, Packaging technology and science, 2004,.Vol 17,.pp 67-83.

Cardo. C. S., Mocholi. R. M., Vicente. 0, Comparative life cycle assessment ( LCA) of
pool pallet systems l4th IAPRl World conference on Packaging, Lidingo, Sweden, 13-
16, June 2004.

Brookes. K. C, A comparative LCA on starch and Polyethylene foams, Masters thesis,.
Department of Chemical Engineering, Michigan State University, 2005.

Coltro. L, Garcia. E. E. C: Gatti. J.A.B, Jaime. S. B.M, Madi. L.F.C, Mourad. A. L. Ortiz,
S.A, Life Cycle Assessment of Packaging: electric energy modeling for Brazilian situation,
Advances in packaging development and research: proceedings of the 20th annual IAPRI
symposium: n., pp 428-441, 2000.

Lelievre. H, Life Cycle Assessment of transport packaging systems: The case study of
wooden Crates for fruits and vegetables, Transpak proceedings, 1999.

Andersson. K, Ohlsson. T, Olsson. P, Screening life cycle assessment (LCA) of
Tomato ketchup:a case stuay, . Journal of cleaner production, 6,.1998,. pp 277-288.

Thrane. M, LCA of Danish ﬁsh products, International Journal of LCA, 1 1(1), 2006
pp 66-74.

26

27)

28)

29)

30)

31)

32)

33)

34)

35)

36)

37)

38)

39)

Saouter. E,. Hoof. G. V, A database for the life cycle assessment of Proctor &
Gamble laundry detergents, International Journal Life cycle assessment, 6, 2001
pp 1-12.

Craighill. A. L, Powell. J. C, Life cycle assessment and economic evaluation of
recycling: a case stuay, Available at
www.uea.2_1c.uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/wm/wm_1995_05.pdf last accessed on June 1, 2006.

Perugini. F, Mastallone. M. L, Arena. Umberto, A life cycle assessment of mechanical and
feedstock Recycling options for management of plastic packaging wastes, Environmental
progress, Vol. 24,

Kim. S, Dale. B. E, Cumulative energy and global warming impact ﬁom the production of
biomass for biobased products, Journal of industrial ecology,3-4 vol.7 2004 :pp 147-162.

Domberg. V, Lewandowski. I, Patel. M, Comparing the land requirements, energy,
Savings and, greenhouse gas emissions reduction of biobased polymers and
Bioenergr, Journal of industrial ecology, 2004,. Vol. 7, No 3-4,.pp 93- 116.

Vink. E.T.H, Rabago. K. R, Glassner. D.A, Gruber P.R: Applications of life cycle
assessment to Natural Work 1” Polylactide (PLA) production. Polymer degradation
and stability, ( 2003), 80 (3)403 — 419.

Vink E T H, Glassner D A, Kolstad J J, Wooley R J, Connor R P O, “ The Ecoproﬁles
for current and near future Nature Works polylactide (PLA) production, J oumal of
Industrial biotechnology, Vol 3, No 1, Spring 2007 pp—58-81.

Kim. S, Dale. B. E Life Cycle Assessment study of Biopolymers (Polyhydroxyalkanoates)
derived from No- tilled corn, International Journal: Life Cycle Assessment 10(3) (2005),
pp 200- 210.

James. K, Grant. T, LCA of degradable plastic bags, Centre for Design RMIT University,
Australia.

Hakala. S, Virtanen. Y, Meinander. K, Tanner, T, Life cycle assessment comparison of
Biopolymer and traditional diaper systems, Available at
www.vtt.ﬁ/inﬂ3df/tiedotteet/ l 997/1“ 1 876.pdf Last accessed on June 22, 2006.

Bohlmann. G. M, Biodegradable packaging life cycle assessment, Environmental progress
23: 2004,. pp 342-346.

Detzel. A, Kruger. M, Life Cycle Assessment of PLA- A comparison of food packaging made
ﬁom Nature Works PLA and alternative materials, IFEU GmBH, Heidelberg, July 2006.

Franklin Associates, Life Cycle inventory of ﬁve products produced from polylactide
(PLA) and petroleum based resins, Available at
www.athenasmi.ca/proiects/docs/Plasti; Products LCA Summary_Rpt.pdf..,November
2006.

27

Chapter 3: Methodology

A set of international standards from the International Standard Organization (ISO)
and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International are used as
guidelines for the systematic approach and conduct of this study. The different standards
used to achieve different motives are explained as follows:

' ASTM 7075-04 - Standard practice for evaluating and reporting environmental
performance of bio based products [1].

I ISO 14040 — LCA principles and framework. This standard outlines the general
principles and requirements for conducting and reporting an LCA study. This
standard was used to familiarize with the basic framework of an LCA study and
the terms mentioned along with. The scope of this standard speciﬁed that it did
not describe the life cycle assessment technique in detail but just deﬁned the
following sections a) goal of the study, b) life cycle inventory analysis, c) life
cycle assessment, d) life cycle interpretation, e) reporting, and f) critical review.

The general framework to be followed in the study is as follows [2].

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Goal &
Inventory Impact
Scope <—> . <—>
. . Analysrs Assessment
Deﬁnition
A K

    

 

 

 

 

Interpretation

Figure 1: General framework / phases of an LCA study [2].

ISO 14041 — Environmental management — Life cycle assessment —Goal and
scope definition and Inventory Analysis — This standard described speciﬁcally the
goal and inventory analysis of the study. With the help of this standard the goal
and scope of the study, the ﬁrnctional unit and the system boundaries of the study
were formed. Also the data categories, data quality, preparation of data collection
and its validation were carried out [3].

ISO 14042 — Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Life cycle
impact assessment - This standard dealt with the intricacies of the life cycle
impact assessment procedure. This standard was used for the selection of impact
categories, category indicators, and characterization models. The standard
supports the assignment of the LCI results, calculation of category indicator
results i.e (characterization), grouping, weighting, and data quality analysis. The

classiﬁcation and characterization factors were calculated within the software.[4].

29

ISO 14043 — Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Life cycle
interpretation- This standard discussed the issues related to life cycle
interpretation procedure. It was helpﬁll in structuring the information of the
inventory phase and determining the signiﬁcant issues with the inventory data,
impact categories. It evaluated the appropriateness of the results by doing
completeness check and sensitivity check. Conclusion and interpretation of the
results on the basis of inventory analysis was done with this standard [5].

ISO 14044 — ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental Management — Life Cycle
Assessment ——

requirements and guidelines 2006. This standard discussed the guidelines for
deﬁning the goal and scope of the study, inventory analysis, impact assessment
and interpretation. It also provided guidelines for reporting of LCA results, and
conditions for use of optional [6].

ISO 14049 — Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Examples of
application of ISO 14041 to goal and scope deﬁnition and inventory analysis-
This standard was used to study the given examples of developing function,
distinguishing function of comparative systems, establishing inputs and outputs of
unit processes and system boundaries, examples of allocations procedures [7].
SimaProTM Software version 7.1.6. from Pre® consultants (The Netherlands) was
used as the primary source for the life cycle inventory (LCI). This software is
supported with databases for the LCI for over 2500 processes and is
recommended for obtaining inventory data for processes involved in the
packaging industry. Most of the data was obtained from the Ecoinvent database

version 1.2. Also other databases such as Buwal 250 were used to obtain speciﬁc

30

process data. Out of the various impact assessment methods available with the
software, Impact 2002+ method was chosen, which is a combination of IMPACT
2002 Eco-Indicator 99, CML, and IPCC methods and the one which gave us the

results with the desired format and units [8].

The different stages leading to impact assessment is shown in the following ﬁgure.

31

 

Data

 

Inventory .

 

 

 

Classiﬁcation

 

Impact category

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Global Warming
kge‘lpo2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ozone layer
depletion

kgeg.CFCs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acidiﬁcation
kg ”.802

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eutrophication
kg eq.PO‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: Calculation format for impact assessment. * - Characterization factor

32

 

 

 

 

 

 

With the help of the above methods, a LCI was generated for the three polymers. The
impact assessment method yielded the ﬁnal results. The ﬁnal chapter contains the

conclusion and future work suggestions.

33

References

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

ASTM D 7075 — 04 — Standard practice for evaluating and reporting environmental
performance of bio based products 1998.

ISO 14040 (2004), Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and
Framework 2004.

ISO 14041 (2004), Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Goal and scope
deﬁnition and inventory analysis 2004.

ISO 14042 — Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Life Cycle Impact
Assessment 2004.

ISO 14043 (2004) Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Life Cycle
Interpretation 2004.

ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental Management -— Life Cycle Assessment — Requirements and
guidelines 2006.

ISO 14049 (2004) Examples of application of ISO 14041 to goal and scope deﬁnition and
inventory analysis 2004.

SimaPro Software version 7.0.2.Pre Consultants bv, Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2006.

34

CHAPTER 4

Madival. S, Auras. R, Singh.S.P, Narayan. R, Assessment of the Environmental Profile of
PLA, PET and PS Clamshell Containers using LCA Methodology, Biomacromolecules,
submitted.

35

Chapter 4: Assessment of the Environmental Proﬁle of PLA, PET and
PS Clamshell Containers using LCA Methodology.

4.1 Abstract

LCAs of bio-based products historically have shown favorable results in terms of
environmental impacts and energy use when compared to petroleum based products. This
paper reports a cradle to cradle Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of polylactide (PLA) in
comparison with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polystyrene (PS) thermoformed
Clamshell containers, used for packaging of strawberries with emphasis on different end
of life scenarios. It considers all the inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and
seed corn required for the growing and harvesting of corn used for manufacturing PLA.
Global warming, aquatic acidiﬁcation, aquatic eutrophication, aquatic ecotoxicity, ozone
depletion, non renewable energy and respiratory organics, land occupation and
respiratory inorganics are the selected impact categories. The geographical scope of the
study reﬂects data from Europe, North America and the Middle East. PET showed the
highest overall values for all the impact categories. The transportation stage of PLA, PET
and PS was responsible for the greatest impact on the environment. When these values
were compared with the impacts produced by the transportation of the product, they were
below 25% of the total emissions. This implied that the transportation stage in the LCA is

an important contributor to the environmental impact.

4.2 Introduction
Life Cycle Assessment is an environment tool. It relates a material’s performance

as an environmentally viable Option compared to its functional alternatives. Within an

36

industry, LCA can be used for product development and improvement, strategizing plans,
making public policies, developing new marketing norms, and a number of different
applications [1]. LCA considers products not just as “products” but as product systems
and beyond, which includes its various stages throughout its life journey. A cradle to gate
LCA study starts with the extraction of raw material and ends when the ﬁnished product
leaves the factory gate. These kinds of studies are typical for polymer resin
manufacturing companies. A cradle to grave LCA study comprises the extraction of the
raw materials, used for manufacturing of products, through the disposal of the product
which ends up in landﬁll, or goes for incineration or recycling. A cradle to cradle study
starts from the raw material extraction through disposal and extends from the disposal
onwards considering the energy recovered through incineration or the raw material
replacement obtained through recycling of the products being studied [1].

LCA has widespread applications in automobiles, construction, electronics,
chemicals, textiles, packaging and an array of other sectors [2]. In the packaging industry
several studies have been done for comparison of packages used for different applications,
food packaging being just one of them. The basic function of food packaging is to protect
and preserve natural or artiﬁcially manufactured or processed foods from spoilage,
simultaneously giving the package shelf appeal with its aesthetics. The packaging domain
consists of raw material manufacturers, the converters, and the users or consumers. It also
includes the distribution network from the wholesalers to retailers and from retailers to
the consumers. In the entire system, the role of packaging is an integral one which cannot
be disregarded or undermined, but at the same time one cannot neglect to observe the

environmental burdens that a package emits during its journey from its production to the

37

waste stream [3].

Sustainability in packaging consists of its three basic elemental functions- social
equity, ecological footprint and economic value [4]. In the last few decades, the
ecological footprint component of sustainable packaging systems has been attempted to
be quantiﬁed by LCA studies. LCA in packaging has emerged out of a study on beverage
which came up in the late 1960’s and the early 1970’s by Harry Teasley of Coca-Cola [5].
LCA studies can assess the environmental performance of different packaging materials
like paper, glass, plastics, steel, aluminum, and wood and for different forms like plastic
containers, metal cans, glass bottles, ﬂexible packaging, paper and board boxes,
composites, pallets and an array of geometric structures. Most of the studies found in
packaging are comparative studies determining the environment viability of a package
among its alternatives for a common application. The package which executes a common

function is not necessary of the same material and forms.

With the growing awareness for a clean and better environment, biobased
packaging is now becoming a trend to replace the traditional petroleum based packaging
materials. Biopolymers, in particular, have created an entire new market for themselves
for packaging of food products. They score over the traditional polymers with the fact
that they are considered as environmentally favorable materials since they are
biodegradable and derived from renewable resources [6]. LCAs of bio-based products
and biopolymers historically have shown reduced impacts and favorable results in terms

of environmental burden and energy use when compared to hydrocarbon based polymers
[4]-

Polylactide (PLA), one of the biobased polymers derived from com-based starch,

38

has recently been drawing attention of the food packaging industry. PLA has
progressively created a market for packaging of fresh cut produce like salads, replacing
the conventional petroleum based polymers like polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and
polystyrene (PS). Studies have been done which have found PLA having comparable
mechanical and physical properties to that of PET and PS [6]. However, LCA studies
comparing biobased containers to hydrocarbon-based containers for packaging of fresh
produce are scarce. Therefore, the objective of the present study is to compare the
environmental impact of containers made from PLA, a biobased polymer, and traditional

hydrocarbon-based PET and PS polymers, used for packaging of strawberries.

4.3 Goal, scope and functional unit of the study

The goal of this study was to compare the environmental impact of PLA, PET,
and PS thermoformed Clamshell containers used for the packaging of strawberries.

The scope of the study was from the extraction of the raw material for the three
polymers followed by the processes for their resin production, through the container
formation followed by their end of life disposal, and it considers global warming,
acidiﬁcation, ozone depletion, aquatic eutrophication, non-renewable energy, land
occupation, respiratory organics, respiratory inorganics and aquatic ecotoxicity as impact
categories.

The functional unit was chosen as 1000 containers of capacity 1 lb each.

39

4.4 Methods
A set of international standards from the International Standard Organization (ISO) and
ASTM International were used as guidelines for the systematic approach and conduct of
the study. The framework of this study was deﬁned according to ISO 14040 guidelines
[7]. The goal and scope deﬁnition of the problem and the inventory analysis were framed
and conducted according to ISO 14041 recommendations [8]. The life cycle assessment
and interpretation were conducted according to ISO l4042,l4043 and 14044 respectively
[9, 10, 11], and ISO 14049 was used for examples of developing function, distinguishing
ﬁlnction of comparative systems, establishing inputs and outputs of unit processes and
system boundaries, and examples of allocations procedures [11]. ASTM 7075 was
consulted to comply with US. standards [12]. SirnaProTM software from Pre® consultants
(The Netherlands) [13] was used as the primary source for the life cycle inventory (LCI).
The software contains LCA data for over 2500 processes typically used in the packaging

industry [14].

4.5 System boundaries
The life cycle ﬂow for the hydrocarbon based polymers, PET and PS, starts with
the extraction of crude oil and cracking of the extracted oil which was common for both
polymers. For PET, from cracking onwards, conversion of associated gases into ethylene,
naphtha to benzene and ethylene oxide, ethylene oxide to ethylene glycol and eventually
PET resin formed the resin production part [13]. For PS, after cracking, oil is transformed
into ethylene which is then reacted with benzene to convert to ethyl benzene followed by

styrene and ﬁnally polymerized to polystyrene resin [14]. For PLA, which is a biobased

40

polymer derived from corn based starch, the life cycle begins with corn growing and
harvesting. The harvested corn is sent to a corn wet mill where corn starch is separated
and converted to dextrose. The dextrose obtained is converted to lactic acid which
through the lactide production is polymerized to polylactide (Figure l) [15].

The resins of the three polymers then go to a converter/container manufacturer.
The resin is extruded into sheets. These sheets undergo a thermoforming operation and
are converted into containers. The containers are then transported to Driscolls Strawbery
Associates, California, USA, a leading fresh strawberry producer and exporter, who
harvests and ﬁlls strawberries into these containers. The ﬁlled containers are distributed
to the market where they go to the consumer. The containers after consumption then
reach the end of life stage where they either end up in a landﬁll or a recycling center or
are incinerated. The energy recovered from the incineration is credited to the energy
consumption for the polymer manufacture. Figure 1 shows the life cycle inventory ﬂow

chart for the three polymers.

41

om growing an Crude 011
harvesting ,

 

 

étarch productioa {ssociated Case} Naphtha

’ I T .
Dextrose ‘ Benzene!
C Production 3 C Ethylene Ethylene Oxide
L cti i i
a cacid .
( Production > CEthleenzene) .
. ' ii I
Lactide Ethylene Glycol I
C D C D
. l , 1' . .

0

Extrusion! Extrusion! Extrusion!
Thennoforming Thermoforming Thermoforming

 

 

Natural gas

Ethylene Oxide

 

Gas production

 

 

Filling of trays) (Filling of trays) ’ Filling of trays

 

Energy
Production

Energy recovery

IR

 

 

 

Filling and Consumption

. _> Consumption
4' .1 ’r. 3.4.» . '7 '- '4 ,,V_ H.» .
o

,‘_ _. L—MLA'

' ' Incineration! ’ v. Incineration] -.
| II I
”ESWSS" I Recycling/Land“ “Wu"g’undﬂ"

 

Figure 3. Life Cycle Inventory ﬂow chart for PLA, PET and PS thermoformed containers.
(T — Transport, T/R — Transport with Refrigeration)

42

4.6 Data and data quality requirements

4.6.1 Data sources and geography

4.6.1.1 Production of resins

The life cycle inventory data for production of PET and PS resins was collected

from the commercial SimaProTM software [14]. The data for the PET and PS resin
manufacturing was taken from the Ecoinvent database available with SimaProTM software.
Data for the resin production included all the processes from cradle to gate including
production of crude oil. The Ecoinvent database uses data from the ecoproﬁles of the
European Plastics Industry (APME) and represents manufacturing at several European
production sites. The transportation stage of the crude oil to the European factories is
similar to the American factories. No emission data for the American companies was
obtained. Data for PLA resin production was unavailable with the databases in the
software, since commercial PLA producing companies are very few. In the USA, PLA is
manufactured by NatureWorksTM PLA, Blair, NE. The inventory data for PLA was taken
from the literature [15]. Data included emissions during corn production, production of
fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, electricity and the fuel used during the harvesting and
corn growing. It also included data for transportation of corn to a corn wet mill. The use
of tractors and other equipment used during corn harvesting were found to be negligible
[15]. Data for production of chemical, enzymes, electricity, and water used for cooling
and processing was included. Appendix B shows the calculations for amount of resin

used to meet the functional unit.

43

4.6.1.2 Production of containers

No speciﬁc data for the extrusion and thermoforming of the three resins was
available. Inventory data for both operations were taken from the Ecoinvent database and
included emissions for the extrusion and thermoforming of a general plastic ﬁlm. The
data was a representative of different European companies. However, the energy
consumption during the thermoforming process was calculated separately using the
speciﬁc heat, temperature difference and heat of fusion values [16]. The energy used for
thermoforming of 1 kg of PET, PS and PLA sheet was calculated to be 0.31 M], 0.30 MJ
and 0.21 M], respectively. The calculations were material speciﬁc and not machine
speciﬁc. Sample containers of dimensions 19 cm x 16.5 cm x 7 cm, for PS and PLA were
used for the study. The weights of these containers were 24.96 g and 30.54 g respectively.
Since no PET container of the same dimensions was available, the weight of the PET
container was calculated on the basis of its speciﬁc gravity ([1: 1370 kg/m3), and
assuming a sheet thickness of 457 mm (18 mils) [6]. PS and PLA thickness were the
same. Appendix B shows the calculations for the energy consumption during the

thermoforming stage.

4.6.1.3 Consumption stage
The ﬁlling operation, comprising ﬁlling of trays with strawberries, storage, and
the distribution of ﬁlled containers to the market through wholesalers and retailers was
assumed to result in similar burdens and for all three containers was excluded from the

study.

44

4.6.1.4 Distances and Transportation

Distances from the resin supplier to the converter were not available for PS and
PET due to company conﬁdential information; therefore, they were assumed to be as
follows. PET resin was assumed to be provided by Eastman Chemical Corporation,
Columbia, SC, (29202), and PS resin was assumed to be provided by INEOS Corporation,
Joliet, IL (60434) (formerly BASF corp.) to Sambraillo Packaging, Watsonville, CA
(95077). These distances were found to be 4251 kms and 3509 kms respectively [17].
NatureWorks LLC, Blair, NE (68008) is the sole PLA resin supplier in the United States.
The distance between Natureworks LLC and Pinnacle Plastic Container, Oxnard, CA
(93033) (the PLA container supplier) was found to be 2592 kms. Distances between
converter and strawberry exporter were calculated with reference to Driscoll Strawberry
Associates, (DSA) Watsonville, CA (95077) and their local suppliers. DSA procures PET
and PS containers from Sambraillo Packaging, Watsonville, CA. The distance between
them is 1.92 kms [17]. Distance between DSA and Pinnacle Plastic Container was
calculated to be 470 kms. Transportation was assumed to be carried out using a 16 t
capacity truck for which the data was obtained ﬁom the Ecoinvent database. After the
containers were ﬁlled by DSA, it was assumed that all the containers were shipped to
four retailers distribution centers in equal proportions located in Tacoma, WA (1363
kms); Loveland, CO (2071 kms); Hooksett, NH (5166 kms); and Lakeland, FL (4504
kms). These distribution centers were included to calculate the effect of the distribution
channel. The data included operation of vehicles, production, maintenance, and

represented generic European data while disposal of vehicles reﬂected Swiss data. The

45

data for road construction, maintenance and disposal was taken from the Swiss conditions.
Since no data for the use of freezers was available in the Ecoinvent database, data from
the LCA food DK database, which is one of the different databases available with
SimaProTM software were used. This database had data for processes in the food product
chain.

Appendix B gives the calculations for the distances and transportation load.

4.6.1.5 End of life stages
The study considered different end of life scenarios in terms of landﬁll,
incineration and recycling. The scenarios were as follows:
0 Scenario I - (40R/301/30L) - 40% Recycling / 30% Incineration / 30% Landﬁll.
0 Scenario II - (100L) - 100% Landﬁll
0 Scenario III — (100R)-100% Recycling
0 Scenario IV — (501/50L)50% Incineration / 50% Landﬁll
0 Current - 23.5 % Incineration / 76.5 % Landﬁll
Scenarios I to IV are hypothetical scenarios which generate information for
different disposal options while the current scenario was based on current trends of waste
treatment for the three types of the containers. The US average rate for municipal waste
stream of polymers was 23.5% incineration and 76% landﬁll [18]. Therefore, for the
three containers, as per the average municipal rate, 23.5% was treated for incineration
and 76.5% for land ﬁlling. Since commercially available centers for the composting and
recycling of PLA are not available, they were also treated as the other polymers. All the

ﬁve scenarios assumed that no container is being retained by the consmner whatsoever

46

and that all the 1000 containers for the three polymers undergo the waste treatment. For
PET & PS, the landﬁll, incineration and recycling data was taken from waste type
category which comprised emissions speciﬁcally for 100% PET and 100% PS,
respectively. The category included waste speciﬁc air and water emissions. Since no
separate data for PLA was available, waste speciﬁc emission data for 100% mixed
plastics category was considered. For the three polymers data for landﬁll and incineration
was taken from the Ecoinvent database while for recycling the data was compiled by Pre®

consultants, Netherlands.

4.6.2 Allocation procedure

Allocation is necessary for processes which yield more than one product output. It
is a procedure whereby burdens are allocated to the products on the basis of different
factors. Allocation may be done on the basis of mass, their molar ﬂow or even the
economic value of the products [8]. For this study the only process which was
accountable for allocation is the production of PLA, PET and PS resins. Since data for
PET and PS were taken from secondary sources which comprised of inventory emissions
for system process. These processes had allocation rules deﬁned in the database module.
No separate allocation rule was considered. Data for PLA was taken from literature and
hence no allocation rule was deﬁned for it. It is of prime importance to mention here that
in this study the amount of carbon di oxide released due to the inherent carbon present in
the PET and PS resin is not considered. The C02 emission reported in case of the
hydrocarbon polymers are those liberated during the resin production process. In case of

PLA the literature data considered the C02 uptake by the corn feedstock during the

47

photosyntheis process.

4.7 Impact Assessment

Different LCA impact assessment methods were available with the SimaProTM
Software. Eco Indicator method available with the eco invent database is one of the
advanced methods of impact assessment. The Impact 2002+ method was chosen, which is
a combination of IMPACT 2002 Eco-Indicator 99, CML, and IPCC methods. The impact
categories discussed in the method are global warming, acidiﬁcation, ozone layer
depletion, aquatic eutrophication, respiratory organics, respiratory inorganics land
occupation, non renewable energy and aquatic ecotoxicity. The calculations were carried
out with SimaProTM software. The Impact 2002+ method carries out the impact
assessment by basically converting the LCI results into midpoint categories which are the
impact categories and then converts the impact categories into damage categories

(endpoint) by means of midpoint reference units].

4.8 Results and Discussion

 

] The respective midpoint reference units are the following: kgeq C02 into air (written “kg 002”) for global
warming, kg... 802 into air (written “kg 802") for Aquatic acidiﬁcation, kgaq CFC-11 into air (written “kg CFC-
11") for Ozone layer depletion, kgaq PO4-- into a P-limited water (written “kg P03 P-Iim") for Aquatic
eutrophication, kgeq ethylene into air (written “kg ethylene”) for Respiratory organics, kgeq PM2.5 into air
(written “kg PM2.5”) for Respiratory inorganics, MJ primary non-renewable (written “MJ primary”) for Non-
renewable energy, , kgeq triethylene glycol into water (written “kg TEG water") for Aquatic ecotoxicity, m2eq
organic arable land (written “m20rg.arable") for Land occupation The ozone layer depletion and respiratory
organics fall under the human health damage category. The aquatic ecotoxicity. acidiﬁcation and aquatic
eutrophication falls under the ecosystem quality damage category. Global warming comes under the climate
change damage category and the non renewable energy comes under the resources damage category. A
detailed description of the damage categories can be found elsewhere [21].

48

Figure 2 shows the normalized values for the main emissions produced by thousand PLA,
PET and PS container. The values are normalized by the normal emission produced by

one European citizen.

 

          

         

 

 

    

 

 

0.030 ZIP”, V
. /
m PET %
PS é§
to 0.025— . /\
s 7 4‘s
'5 4 A
> 0020- ﬁg 7 g§ .
OI. - / r
E /\ /N /\
— 0.015- ¢§ /\ /\ -
e A A A
a A a A
= /\ ¢\ ¢\
n _ /\ /\ /\ —
E 0.010 ¢§ /\ /\
0.005, 6N /\ /\ m
0.00 . .
7 A A
0.001 / .

Carcinogens .

Non-Carcinogens .
Respiratory inorganics
Ionizing radiation
Ozone layer depletion
Respiratory organics

Aquatic ecotoxicity E

Land occupation §
Global warming
Non-renewable energy

Figure 4. Normalized impact value comparing one PLA, PS and PET container. Method of
comparison IMPACT2002+ V2.02. Values are normalized according to the emission produced
annually by a European citizen.

PET had the highest values for all the impact categories, except for aquatic

acidiﬁcation, respiratory organics and respiratory inorganics, which were expected due to

the higher weight of the containers and the longest transportation distance of the resins.

49

For PLA, the main impact categories were aquatic acidiﬁcation, respiratory organics, and
respiratory inorganics. The results of the cradle to grave analysis for 1000 containers of
PLA, PET and PS with empty containers and with food are shown in Table 1. PET
shows the higher values for most of the categories, and PLA shows higher values than PS

for all the categories except aquatic ecotoxicity.

Table 8: Impact category values for 1000 containers of PLA, PET and PS ﬁlled with strawberries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Impact Category Stage PLA PET PS
Global warming, kg C02 .eq. Resin production 60 72 70
Extrusion 15 16 12
Thermoforming 22 24 18
Electricity production 3 4 3
Transportation (R) 28.7 50.2 31.7
Transportation (C) 41.8 39.3 30.1
Sub-Total 171 198 165
Transportation (S) 564 565 565
Total 735 763 730
Aquaﬁigsagﬂfﬂm' Resin production 1.17 0.36 0.47
Extrusion 0.06 0.07 0.05
Thermoforrning 0.11 0.12 0.09
Electricity production 0.01 0.02 0.02
Transportation (R) 0.19 0.34 0.22
Transportation (C) 0.28 0.27 0.20
Sub-Total 1.62 1.14 1.04
Transportation (S) 3.84 3.83 3.83
Total 5.66 4.97 4.67
Ozone layer depletion, Resin production 2.88E-06 4.10E-06 2.77-9
kg CFC-11.eq Extrusion 8.21 E07 8.77E-07 6.17E-07
Thermoforming 1 .1 7E-06 1 255-06 9.56E-07
Electricity production 1.09E-07 9.56E-08 7.34E-08
Transportation (R) 3.91 E06 6.84E-06 4.32E-06
Transportation (C) 5.70E-06 5.36E-06 4.18E-06
Sub-Total 1.45E-06 1.79E-06 1.01 E-05
Transportation (S) 7.70E-05 7.69E-05 7.70E-05
Total 9.16E-05 9.48E-05 8.71 E05

 

50

Table 8 Continued

 

Aquatic eutrophication, kg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PO. .eq. Resin production 5.56E-03 6.83E-02 1.97E-04
Extrusion 3.00E-04 3.78E-04 2.89E-04
Thennoforming 1 .10E-03 1.20E-03 9.18E-04
Electricity production 0.00013 4.95E-05 3.79E-05
Transportation (R) 0.00370 0.00645 0.00407
Transportation (C) 0.00537 0.00505 0.00387
Sub-Total 0.01803 0.07530 0.00940
Transportation (S) 0.0726 0.0727 0.0725
Total 0.0686 0.1460 0.0819
Respiratory organics. Resin production 1.30E-01 6.52E-02 5.60E-02
kg. Ethylene .eq Extrusion 3.18E-03 3.40E-03 2.60E-03
Thermoforming 8.26E-03 8.83E-03 6.75E-03
Electricity production 3565-03 1.97E-04 1.61 E-04
Transportation (R) 0.0537 0.0940 0.0594
Transportation (C) 0.0783 0.0736 0.0564
Sub-Total 0.277 0.2340 0.1610
Transportation (S) 1 .053 1 .056 1 .059
Total 1.33 1.29 1.24
Aquatic ecotoxity, water Resin production 2650 3868 9240
kg TEG eq Extrusion 857 916 700
(T EG: (T riethylene glycol) Thermofom'ling 1400 1500 1 150
Electricity production 93 126 96
Transportation (R) 1 1400 20000 12600
Transportation (C) 16600 1 5600 12000
Sub-Total 33000 41800 35700
Transportation (S) 224000 224400 224300
Total 257000 286000 260000
R NR NR NR
Energy, MJ surpluseq. Resin production 991/324‘ 1019/33.4* 241 2174.0‘ 2400/96.1"
Extrusion 283 303 231
Thermoforming 476 508 389
Electricity production 41 54 42
Transportation (R) 477 837 528
Transportation (C) 697 655 501
Sub-Total 991 2993 4560 4090
Transportation (S) 9416 9440 9410
Total 13400 14000 13500
Land occupation Resin production 0.04 0.37 0.001
m20rg.arable .eq Extrusion 0.62 0.66 0.50
Thennofonning 1.33 1 .42 1 .06
Electricity production 0.0009 0.0015 0.001 1
Transportation (R) 0.38 0.66 0.42
Transportation (C) 0.55 0.51 0.39
Sub-Total 2.92 3.82 2.4
Transportation (S) 7.4 7.38 7.4
Total 1 0.3 1 1 9.6

51

Table 8 Continued

 

 

Respiratory inorganics, Resin production 2.650 0.0508 0.0683
kg PM2.5 .eq Extrusion 0.01 0.01 0.008
Therrnoforrning 0.018 0.019 0.015
Electricity production 0.0024 0.0038 0.0029
Transportation (R) 0.052 0.091 0.057
Transportation (C) 0.06 0.07 0.05
Sub-Total 0.294 0.246 0.206
Transportation (S) 1.016 1.015 1.014
Total 1.31 1.26 1.22

 

* Energy consumption for 1 kg of resin. R= Renewable; NR= Non renewable
Transportation (R) - Transportation of resin from resin supplier to container manufacturer.
Transportation (C) — Transportation of containers from strawberry ﬁller to distributors / market.
Transportation (S) — Transportation of 1000le of strawbenies (only food and no containers). Variation of
between the PLA, PET and PS values are due to rounding error in the software.

4.8.1 Sensitivity analysis

A sensitivity analysis was carried out to analyze the effect of each step during the
cradle to grave life journey of the containers [10]. Table 1 gives the process contribution
values for each polymer towards the total emission. These values depict as to which stage
in the life cycle contributes the maximum to the impact categories and indirectly reﬂects
the extent of variation in the results which may occur due to any uncertainty in the data of

that particular stage.

Global warming (Carbon dioxide emission): Table 1 provides the process contribution
for global warming impact for the hydrocarbon and biobased containers through the
cradle to grave life journey. The resin production stage contributed the highest CO2 for
PLA, PET and PS containers after the transportation scenario. However PET contains
62.5% of carbon and PS contains 92% carbon in their resin which is not accounted in the
emissions. The CO2 value present in their inventory are the emissions generated during

the manufacturing operations. The literature data for PLA reports total emission of 3.84

52

kg of CO2 eq. per kg of PLA resin, out ot which 1.82 is the CO2 uptake by the corn
feedstock. Thus the data considers the carbon content of PLA resin According to the
functional unit of this study 24.96 kg of PS resin, 30.54 kg of PLA resin and 32.64 kg of
PET resin were required to manufacture 1000 containers each, but since 8.2% of recycled
PET is used in the manufacturing of sheets, there is some reduction in the consumption of
virgin material [18]. The CO2 emission values during the extrusion and thermoforming
stages for PS are the lowest followed by PLA and PET. Transportation distance was
longest between the PET resin supplier and the converter (425] kms) which was
responsible for the high values of CO2 for PET transportation stage. Overall for PLA &
PET the resin production stage contributed 36% (62 kg. equivalent and 72 kg. equivalent
respectively) of the subtotal 171 and 172 kg CO2 emission and for PS the resin
production stage contributed 43% (70 kg. equivalent) of the subtotal 165 kg CO2
emission. However, these CO2 emissions represented less than 26% of the total emission

produce by the packaging system when considering the transportation of the product.

Aquatic acidification: The resin production stage for PLA contributed 1.15 kg of $02
which was about 63% of the total S02 emission during its life journey. The most
contributing stage for S02 emission for PET was during the transportation with 0.61 kg.
The resin production stage for PET and PS produced 0.36 kg and 0.47 kg, respectively,

which was about 31% and 45% respectively of their total 802 emission.

Ozone layer depletion potential (ODP): ODP value for PLA during the transportation

stage was 9.6E-06 kg of CFC-11, which was about 66% of the total ODP. For PET and

53

PS, the highest ODP value was also found during transportation which was 1.22E-05 and

8.42E-06 kg of CFC-1 1, respectively.

Aquatic eutrophication: PLA resin production contributed around 0.00556 kg of P04
equivalents about 36% of the total potential. PET resin production contributed 0.068kg
P04 equivalents about 84% and PS resin production stage contributed 0.00019 kg P04
equivalents about 2% of the total while its transportation stage contributed around 84% of
the total emission. The lower PS value for aquatic eutrophication for the resin stage as
compared to PET are mainly due to the lower chemical oxygen demand value accounted
for PS resin production. The characterization value for this waterborne emission in terms
of P04 ions is 0.0717 for PET and 0.000209 for PS. The rest of the emissions which are
air borne and soil emissions characterized to P04 ions for aquatic eutrophication for the

PS resin stage are almost negligible.

Respiratory organics: PLA transportation contributed about 48% of the total ethylene
equivalents, while PET and PS transportation contributed about 72% and 64%

respectively.

Respiratory inorganics: PLA transportation contributed about 43% of the total ethylene

equivalents, while PET and PS transportation contributed about 66% and 54%

respectively.

54

Aquatic ecotoxicity: For PLA, PET and PS the major contribution for this category
came from the transportation stage which contributed around 85%, 86% and 68% of the

total burdens respectively.

Energy (Electricity consumption): Table 1 gives the electricity as renewable and non
renewable energy consumption during the different stages of the container manufacturing.
The energy consumption for 1 kg of PLA resin was 65.8 MJ out of which 32.4 MJ was
from non renewable resources mainly obtained from biomass [15]. One kg of resin
production for PET and PS required 74 and 96.1 MJ of energy. In this case should be also
considered that PET and PS resin producers can also procure or buy renewable energy
credit to reduce the non-renewable energy consumption. The energy required to produce
resins for manufacturing 1000 containers were 2010 M1 for PLA, 2412 MJ for PET and
2400 MJ for PS. The energy used during the extrusion operation was 283 MJ for PLA,
303 M] for PET and 231 Ml for PS which is mainly related to the amount of resin
extruded to produce sheets. The energy consumption during the thermoforming operation
was calculated based on the speciﬁc heat of each polymer, the temperature difference and
heat of fusion of the polymers. The energy values for this operation was found to be
lowest for PLA which was 0.21 MJ/ kg and 0.31 MJ/kg for PET and PS. The energy
required for thermoforming 1000 containers for PLA, PET and PS were 476 MJ, 508 MJ
and 389 MJ, respectively. The transportation stage energy consumption was 1170 MJ,
1490 MJ and 1030 MJ for PLA, PET and PS, respectively. For PLA, PET and PS the

highest energy consumption was during the resin production stage.

55

Land occupation: Land use for PLA accounts for 36.42% of its total land consumption
while for PET and PS land use values are 31.31% and 36.11% of its total consumption.
However when it comes to land occupation for industrial activities and traffic area for
road and rail embankment and network PLA accounts for 63.6%, PET for 68.6% and PS

for 63.9% of the total land occupied.

4.8.2 End of life scenarios

Five different end of life scenarios were considered in terms of landﬁll,
incineration and recycling of the containers. In the case of PLA, landﬁll was considered
as one of the end of life option, which does not make sense since biopolymers are meant
for end of life stage such as composting and not landﬁll. At this point, composting was
not considered as an end life scenario since no emission data were available. The ﬁrst

four scenarios are hypothetical and the last one is the current scenario of disposal in the

US.

Carbon dioxide emission: Figure 3 shows the carbon dioxide emission for the ﬁve
different ends of life scenarios. The values for CO2 emissions for PET were highest for
all the scenarios. CO2 values for PS were lower than PET for the ﬁve scenarios showing
the primordial roll that polymer down-gauging and light-weighting plays on reduction of
CO2 emissions. This ﬁnally can be correlated to the fact that for 32.64 kg of PET and

24.96 kg of PS was used for manufacturing 1000 containers each.

56

 

 

 

 

e//////////////////////////////////////////a

7////////////////////////////////////////////////////%n

k

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\a
///////////////////////////////A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r////////////////////////////////////////m

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\n
was /////////////////////////////////////////////r

P
“

é‘
Ema

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

p

 

 

 

 

250

0
0 5
2 1 1

a! .:o_ne_Em 2:on cognac

5

L
o o o o
o

100L 100R 50II50L Current

40RI30|I30L

Disposal Scenarios

for cradle to cradle analysis of 1000 containers of PLA, PET

Figure 5. Carbon di oxide emission

and PS.

g

C

r scenario I and 11 i di

0

f

The CO2 emission values for PS were almost similar

CO2

C

am

S

PS have almost the

f

neration and 30% landﬁll o

.1

40% recycling, 30

00%

1

C

C

d

f lan ﬁll. Scenario III has the 10

0

as 100%

S

emission

w r CO2 emission; how ver,

W38

0

nari

C

to achieve. This sc

r

s not a realistic numbe

01

C

c ntainrs

0

of the

g

recyclin

esent

r.

C

C

C

C

a

C

S case WC

.1

tively. However, in th

C

PLA, PET and PS, respe

r

fo

S

1111

C

the high st CO2 e

n landﬁll content reduces the amount of CO2 emission for

.1

rve that an increase

C

can obs

apture of the CO2 emission.

C

polymers due to the

C

the thre

57

Energy consumption: Figure 4 shows the energy consumption for the cradle to cradle
analysis for 1000 PLA, PET and PS containers. For PLA, PET and PS, scenarios 11, IV
and the current scenario have similar energy consumption values indicating that
increasing the incineration percent from 0 % to 50% does not recover energy
signiﬁcantly. If we compared the energy consumption for PLA for all the scenarios, we
can observe that the current scenario for PLA (i.e., 23.5% incineration and 76.5% landﬁll)
does not produce an appreciable advantage when we considered energy consumption
with respect to other alternatives such as PS and PET containers. Therefore, for PLA

containers to reduce its energy consumption, recycling should be established.

58

 

 

          

§§§§m

 

N\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\&n
Z/////////////////////////////////w///////w/%s

u
o
5

\

  

 

     

Vxx/////////////////////H

\

R
0
0
1

N\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\t
V//.////////////////////////////////////////////////am

          

\

 

S\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Sm

 

 

 

5000

mmm V///V////////////////////////////////am

22 60:53:00 3.2m

Disposal Scenarios

Figure 6. Energy consumption for cradle to cradle analysis 1000 containers of PLA, PET and PS

and assumptions

5

4.9 Limitation

tion

C

du

0

4.9.1 Resin pr

data for the emissions and energy consumption for PLA were

C

iﬁ

C

No spe

data was taken for

C

s with the SimaProTM software. Literatur

C

tabas

a

C

hd

available in t

11 production was not

.1

ation of energy consumption during its res

l

calcu

C

th

C

PLA and henc

ulations. PET and PS

C

oftwar , and it was additionally added to the cal

S

he

t

possible with

ddition, this study did

a

tly reﬂected the European situation; in

S

tame

a

resin production (1

o the local transportations.

t

not include emission due

59

4.9.2 Conversion processes

The extrusion process for the three polymers was assumed to be similar to that of
a general plastic ﬁlm. More speciﬁc data for the extrusion of these polymers based on
temperature difference, speciﬁc gravity and speciﬁc heat could have used to estimate the
actual energy consumed and burdens emitted during the extrusion process for each
polymer. Machine speciﬁc data could have been an additional source of information for
the comparison, which could have detailed the process based on the melt ﬂow and other
processing parameters. The thermoforming operation was assumed to be similar to that
of a general plastic sheet which included the calendaring process. Although the study was
able to calculate the energy consumption during the thermoforming operation separately
for the three polymers, a similar but speciﬁc data on the emissions could have given a
clear picture for a better comparison for this operation. The calculations for the actual
amount of resin required to make 1000 containers was based on available PS and PLA
sample containers, which were equal in volume and capacity. No sample was available
for PET. The calculations for PET were done based on the assumption of a container
equal in volume and capacity to that of PS and PLA. The calculations were carried out
based of the speciﬁc gravity of PET and the thickness of the sheet. The total amount of
sheet wasted as scrap during the converting process was assumed to be 3.61% for PET,

3.15% for PS and 3.19% for PLA [20].

60

4.9.3 Transportation and distances

No speciﬁc data was available for the burdens for refrigerated trucks. The
emissions were calculated separately for the truck, which was assumed to be a 16t
capacity truck, and freezer of 2631 capacity and the data reﬂected Swiss conditions. Since
NatureWorks recommends to ship PLA resins below its glass transition temperature
(~55°C), no separate data for refrigerated transportation for PLA resin to converter and
from converter to the ﬁller was considered. This could have lead to higher emissions for
PLA during the transportation stage. Eastman Chemical Corporation, Columbia, SC, was
assumed as PET resin supplier and IN EOS Corporation, Joliet, IL (60434) (formed BASF
corp.) was assumed as PS resin supplier to Sambraillo Packaging, Watsonville,CA (PET
and PS container supplier). For PLA containers, Pinnacle Plastic Container was assumed
as their supplier since they were locally situated with respect to Driscolls. The distance
between NatureWorks LLC, Blair NE (PLA resin supplier) and Pinnacle Plastic
Container, Oxnard, CA was calculated and included in the analysis. Distances were also
calculated with respect to the Driscoll Strawberry Associates Inc., California, the
strawberry exporter and the PET and PS container supplier. The distances from the
exporter to the retailers were considered according to four retailer distribution centers
located in Tacoma, WA; Loveland, CO; Hooksett, NH; and Lakeland, F1. The distances
from the retailer centers to the market, market to the consumers, from consumer to the
landﬁll, incineration and recycling centers were considered to be common or negligible

and hence were excluded from the study.

61

4.9.4 End of life scenario

No data for land ﬁlling, incineration or recycling was available for PLA and
hence the emission for the disposal scenario for mixed plastics was considered for PLA.
Out of the total 1000 containers, all of them were assumed to reach the ends of life
scenarios and no container was assumed to be retained by the consumer for whatsoever
purposes. PLA containers can be 100% recyclable and/or compostable. Since there is a
lack of commercially available recycling and composting centers for PLA, inventory data
speciﬁc to these processes could be expected to change the impact values for PLA.

Further study is being carried out in this direction by some of the authors.

5. Final remarks

The current works evaluate the environmental impact produced by PLA, PET and
PS containers for distribution of fresh produce. PET contributed the highest towards
almost all the impact categories. This could be mainly attributed to the higher weight of
the containers. The transportation stage of PLA, PS and PET was the major contributor
for the global warming, ozone layer depletion, and aquatic ecotoxity burdens emitted by
it through its life journey. This study found and demonstrated that the transportation stage
is a major contributor for most of the impact categories during the life cycle of the three
Clamshell containers. Since the strawberry exporter and the container supplier were
situated in California, the locally possible PET resin manufacturing site was available in
Columbia, SC. Similarly, for PS the locally situated resin production site was found to be
at Joliet, IL. There may be PET and PS resin companies having manufacturing sites much

closer to California than the ones assumed by this study. In that case, the results would

62

change depending on the distances between the resin supplier and the converter. The only
supplier for PLA resin in the United States of America is NatureWorks LLC, NE. In a
case where the distances between the PET and PS resin suppliers and the converter is
lesser compared to that of PLA resin then the data obtained in this study would invariably
show different results. Thus, procurement of resin and supplies closest to the manufacture
and end life scenario would have a greater impact in the majority of the cases. Moreover,
if the PET and PS producers are willing to procure renewable energy credits, the
environmental footprint of PET and PS Clamshell container will also change. In addition,
when considering the emissions produced by the transportation of the product, the total
emissions of the containers are lower than 26%. Finally, if the ecological footprint of a
package must be minimized, production and procurement of the majority of the available
materials should be obtained locally. However, if we look at the total sustainability of the
packaging system, further consideration to the social equity and economic value
generated by the system approach should be assessed and balanced, accordingly. To the

authors’ best knowledge research work is needed in this direction.

63

References

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

3)

9)

Azapagic A, Emsley A, Hamerton I, “Design for the environment: The Life Cycle
Approach in Polymers” — The environment and sustainable development, pp. 125-153,
2003

Narayan R, Drivers and rationale for use of biobased materials based on life cycle
assessment (LCA) in Global Plastics Environmental Conference 2004, Atlanta, GA.

Lee S G, Xu X, “Design for the environment: Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainable

packaging issues”, International Journal Environmental Technology and Management,
Vol. 5. No.1. 2005.

Sonneveld K, James K, Fitzpatrick L, Lewis H, “Sustainable Packaging: How do we
Measure it?” 22nd IAPRI symposium, Brazil June 2005, pp. 1-9.

Martino D, “LCA — A critical review and estimation of its uncertainity in the
comparative evaluation of Packaging systems”, Doctoral thesis School of Packaging,
Michigan State University, 2005.

Auras R, Singh. S P, Singh J, “Performance evaluation of PLA against existing PET
and PS containers”, Journal of testing and evaluation, 2004, 34(6) pp 112- 118.

ISO 14040 (2004), Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles
and Framework 2004.

ISO 14041 (2004), Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Goal and
scope deﬁnition and inventory analysis 2004.

ISO 14042 —— Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Life Cycle
Impact Assessment 2004.

10) ISO 14043 (2004) Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Life Cycle

Interpretation 2004.

11)ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment —

Requirements and guidelines 2006.

12) ISO 14049 (2004) Examples of application of ISO 14041 to goal and scope deﬁnition

and inventory analysis 2004.

13) ASTM D 7075 — 04 - Standard practice for evaluating and reporting environmental

performance of bio based products 1998.

14) SimaPro Software version 7.0.2.Pre Consultants bv, Amersfoort, The Netherlands,

2006.

64

15) Boustead I, Ecoproﬁles of the European plastics industry :Oleﬁns. APME, Brussels
2005.

16)Vink E T H, Glassner D A, Kolstad J J, Wooley R J, Connor R P O, “ The
Ecoproﬁles for current and near future NatureWorks polylactide (PLA) production.”.,
Journal of Industrial biotechnology, Vol 3, No 1, Spring 2007 pp—58-8l.

17) Gruenweld. G, “Thermoforming- A plastics processing guide”, Technomic publishing
Co.INC, Lancester,PA,U SA, 1 998.

18) Mapquest, Mapquest Inc, Denver Colorado.2005.

19) National Association for PET container resources, “2005 report on post consumer
PET container recycling activity”, Sonoma, California. 2005

20) Keoleian G A University of Michigan.2001. Life cycle assessment of Stonyﬁeld
Farm product delivery system. Ann Arbor, MI.

21) Detzel.A., Kruger.M., “Life Cycle Assessment of PLA- A comparison of food
packaging made from NatureWorks PLA and alternative materials”.,IF EU GmBH,
Heidelberg, July 2006.

22) Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaurn R,

“IMPACT 2002+: A New Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology”, Int. J LCA
8 (6) 324 — 330 (2003).

65

Chapter 5. Effect of Distance and Transportation on the
environmental impact of PLA, PET and PS containers.

5.1 Introduction

According to Chapter 4, transportation is one of the important stages of the
environmental impact of PLA, PET and PS clarnshell containers. This system as a whole
depends on different factors such as the mode of transport (land, air, rail or road), the
type and make of the transport vehicle, the transport conditions (road conditions), the
load and the distance traveled. Each of these factors displays a different set of inventory
data and hence the results vary extensively depending upon a certain set of conditions [1].
Earlier studies have found that the emission generated and the energy consumed during
the transportation process can be quite dominating on the overall results of the study and
the environmental impacts, so they cannot be undermined. Also, few studies have
suggested that an improvement in the transport system would greatly improve the
environmental burden values [2]. Comparative LCA’s have also adopted the policy of
eliminating the transportation system out of the system boundary on the grounds of being
a “common stage” in the life cycle and thereby assuming to exhibit similar burdens [3].
Although it is a better alternative, in comparative LCA’s, to simplify the study and
determine the environmental viability of a particular product but more often than not the
essence of deriving the actual impact value becomes obscure. The following study aimed
at analyzing the importance of transportation and distances during the distribution of

strawberry ﬁlled PLA, PET and PS clarnshell containers.

66

5.2 Goal and scope

The goal of the study was to analyze the effect of distance and transportation during the
distribution stage of strawberry ﬁlled PLA, PET and PS clarnshell containers. Data was
taken from Europe and North America. The impact categories considered were same as
those described in the previous chapter. The functional unit was also chosen as 1000

containers of capacity 1 lb each.

5.3 System boundaries

The empty PLA, PET and PS containers were ﬁlled with strawberries at Driscolls
Strawberry Associates, California and transported to four different Walmart distribution
centers located at Tacoma, (WA), Loveland (CO), Lakeland (FL) and Hooksett (NH).The
ﬁlling operation and the post distribution stages was kept out of the system boundary.
The distances from the exporter to the four distribution locations were about 1522 kms
(Tacoma, WA), 2230 kms (Loveland, CO), 4664 kms (Lakeland, FL) and 5327 kms
(Hooksett, NH) by road and about 1100 kms (Tacoma, WA), 1700 kms (Loveland, CO),

4400 kms (Lakeland, FL) and 4500 kms (Hooksett, NH) by rail [4, 5].

5.4 Assumptions

The truck used for transportation was a 16 and 28 ton capacity truck and a rail diesel
locomotive was used as the railway mode of transportation. Driscolls Strawberry
Associates, California, USA, was assumed to be the strawberry exporter. The ﬁlled

containers were distributed among four different Walmart distribution centers located at

67

Tacoma, (WA, 98499), Loveland (CO, 80538), Lakeland (FL, 34602) and Hooksett (NH,

63077).

Methods

The framework of this study was deﬁned according to ISO 14040 guidelines [6]. The
goal and scope deﬁnition of the problem and the inventory analysis were framed and
conducted according to ISO 14041 recommendations [7]. The life cycle assessment and
interpretation were conducted according to ISO l4042,l4043 and 14044 [8, 9, 10], and
ISO 14049 was used for examples of developing function, distinguishing function of
comparative systems, establishing inputs and outputs of unit processes and system
' boundaries, and examples of allocations procedures [11]. ASTM D 7075 was consulted to
comply with US. standards. SimaProTM software version 7.1.6 from Pre® consultants
(The Netherlands) with the Ecoinvent database version 1.2 was used as the primary
source for the life cycle inventory (LCI) [12, 13]. The transportation stage of the life
cycle system used to conduct the study in Chapter 4 was utilized to generate the

inventory data. Impact 2002+ was chosen as the method for impact assessment.

Results and discussion

This chapter analyzed the variation of environmental impact values caused due to
transportation and distances. To achieve this, two separate transportation system were
studied. In the ﬁrst scenario, 1000 strawberry ﬁlled PLA, PET and PS clarnshell
containers were distributed equally and transported through a 16 and 28 ton capacity

truck from Driscolls Strawberry Associates to four different Walmart distribution centers

68

throughout the US in Washington, Colorado, Florida and New Hampshire. For the same
situation the second scenario used a rail diesel locomotive. It is of outrnost importance to
mention here, that the main objective of this chapter is not comparing the burdens among
the containers, but to translate the effect of changes in distances and transportation
system on emissions caused due to the activities. Table l, 2 and 3 provide the burden
values for the nine different impact categories for 16, 28 ton capacity truck and rail diesel

locomotive respectively.

Table 9: Impact category values due to transportation of strawberry ﬁlled containers from

exporter to market by a 16 ton capacity truck.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Impact Camry Stage PLA PET PS
Global warming, kg COz.eq Washington 59.60 59.90 59.00
Colorado 90.60 91.00 89.60
Florida 197.00 198.00 195.00
New Hampshire 226.00 227.00 224.00
Aquatic acidiﬁcation, kg
SO2.eq Washington 0.40 0.41 0.40
Colorado 0.62 0.62 0.61
Florida 1.34 1.34 1.32
New Hampshire 1.53 1.54 1.52
Ozone layer depletion, Washington 8.12E-06 8.16E-06 8.03E-06
kg CFC-11.eq Colorado 1.23E-05 1.24E-05 1.22E-05
Florida 2.69E-05 2.70E-05 2.68E-05
New Hampshire 3.08E-05 3.09E-05 3.05E-05
Aquatic eutrophication, kg
PO. Washington 0.0077 0.0077 0.0076
Colorado 0.0116 0.0117 0.0115
Florida 0.0253 0.0254 0.0250
New Hampshire 0.0290 0.0291 0.0287
Respiratory organics, Washington 0.112 0.112 0.110
kg Ethyleneeq Colorado 0.170 0.170 0.168
Florida 0.369 0.370 0.365
New Hampshire 0.423 0.425 0.418
Aquatic ecotoxity, water Washington 23700 23800 23400
kg TEG.eq Colorado 36000 36100 35600
(T EG: (T riethylene glycol) Florida 78300 78600 77400
New Hampshire 89800 90200 88800

 

69

Table 9 Continued

 

 

 

Energy, MJ surplus.eq Washington 993 997 982
Colorado 1510 1520 1490

Florida 3280 3300 3250

New Hampshire 3760 3780 3720
Land occupation Washington 0.781 0.784 0.772
m20rg.arable.eq Colorado 1.190 1.190 1.170
Florida 2.580 2.590 2.550
New Hampshire 2.960 2.970 2.930
Respiratory inorganics, Washington 0.107 0.108 0.106
kg PM2.5.eq Colorado 0.163 0.164 0.161
Florida 0.355 0.356 0.351
New Hampshire 0.407 0.409 0.403

 

Table 10: Impact category values due to transportation of strawberry ﬁlled

exporter to market by a 28 ton capacity truck.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Impact Category Sgge PLA PET PS
Global warming, kg C02.eq Washington 36.1 36.2 35.7
Colorado 54.8 55.1 54.2
Florida 119 120 118
New Hampshire 137 1 37 135
Aquatic acidiﬁcation, kg
SOz.eq Washington 0.256 0.257 0.253
Colorado 0.389 0.391 0.385
Florida 0.847 0.850 0.837
New Hampshire 0.971 0.975 0.961
Ozone layer depletion, Washington 6E-06 6.03E-06 5.93E-06
kg CFC-11.eq Colorado 9.12E-06 9.16E-06 9.02E-06
Florida 1 .98E-05 1 .99E-05 1.96E-05
New Hampshire 2.28-05 2.26E-05 2.55E-05
Aquatic eutrophication, kg
PO..eq Washington 0.00351 0.00352 000347
Colorado 0.00533 0.00535 0.00527
Florida 0.0116 0.0116 0.0115
New Hampshire 0.0133 0.0134 0.0132
Respiratory organics, Washington 0.0400 0.0402 0.0396
kg Ethyleneeq Colorado 0.0608 0.061 00601
Florida 0.132 0.133 0.131
New Hampshire 0.152 0.152 0.150
Aquatic ecotoxity, water Washington 13000 13100 12900
kg TEG.eq Colorado 19800 19800 19500
(T EG: (T riethylene glycol) Florida 43000 43100 42500
New Hampshire 49300 49500 48700

 

70

containers from

Table 10 Continued

 

 

 

Energy, MJ surplus.eq Washington 610 613 604

Colorado 928 931 917

Florida 2020 2030 2000

New Hampshire 2310 2320 2290

Land occupation Washington 0.287 0.289 0.284
m20rg.arable.eq Colorado 0.437 0.438 0.432
Florida 0.950 0.954 0.939

New Hampshire 1.09 1.09 1.08
Respiratory inorganics, Washington 0.0571 0.0573 0.0565
kg PM2.5.eq Colorado 0.0868 0.0871 0.0858
Florida 0.189 0.189 0.187

New Hampshire 0.216 0.217 0.214

 

Table 11: Impact category values due to transportation of strawberry ﬁlled containers from

exporter to market by a Rail diesel locomotive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Impact Category Stage PLA PET PS
Global warming. kg CO; Washington 2.57 2.58 2.54
Colorado 3.93 3.98 3.92
Florida 10.30 10.30 10.10
New Hampshire 10.50 10.30 10.50
Aquatic acidiﬁcation, kg 80; Washington 0.0252 0.0253 0.0249
Colorado 0.0386 0.0391 0.0385
Florida 0.1010 0.1010 0.0997
New Hampshire 0.1030 0.1010 0.1040
Ozone layer depletion, Washington 1.38E-09 1.38E-09 1 .36E-09
kg CFC-11 Colorado 2.10E-09 2.13E-09 2.10E-09
Florida 5.50E-09 5.52E-09 5.44E-09
New Hamﬁhire 5.63E-09 5.52E-09 5.65E-09
Aquatic eutrophication, kg P04 Washington 0.000002 0.000002 0.000002
Colorado 0.000003 0.000003 0.000003
Florida 0.000009 0.000009 0.000009
New Hampshire 0.000009 0.000009 0.000009
Respiratory organics, Washington 0.0090 0.0090 0.0089
kg Ethylene Colorado 0.0137 0.0139 0.0137
Florida 0.0359 0.0361 0.0355
New Hampshire 0.0368 0.0361 0.0369
Aquatic ecotoxity, water Washington 0.575 0.578 0.569
kg TEG Colorado 0.880 0.893 0.879
(T EG: (T riethylene glycol) Florida 2.300 2.310 2.280
New Hampshire 2.350 2.310 2.360

 

71

Table l 1 Continued

 

 

 

Energy, MJ surplus Washington 35 35 34

Colorado 53 54 53

Florida 139 139 137

New Hampshire 142 139 143
Land occupation Washington 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
m20rg.arab|e Colorado 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Florida 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
New Hampshire 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Respiratory inorganics, Washington 0.0079 0.0080 0.0079
kg PM2.5 Colorado 0.0122 0.0123 0.0121
Florida 0.0318 0.0319 0.0314

Table 9, 10 and 11 show that, with the increase in the distance, there was a subsequent
increase in the impact values for all the categories. When the distances were equal, the
impact values were fairly the same for the polymers. For global warming, the C02 values
increased from about 59 kgs to about 226 kgs, with increase in the distance from
Washington to New Hampshire while using a 16 ton capacity truck and about 36.1 kgs to
137 kgs with a 28 ton capacity truck. For the rail diesel locomotive, the global warming
values increased from 2.57 to 10.50 kgs. With about three times increase in the distance
from Washington to New Hampshire, there was about four times increase in the impact
values. A similar trend was observed for all the impact categories in the three cases. A
reduction in the overall burden values was observed with the usage of a higher capacity
truck. This could be correlated to the consumption of fuel and energy by the trucks used
during the transportation. A 16 ton capacity truck consumes 0.091 of diesel and a 28 ton
capacity truck uses 0.041 of diesel for a transportation load of 1 ton.km. Furthermore, the
energy consumption for a 16 ton capacity truck was 3.4MJ and 1.5MJ for 28 ton capacity
truck for the same transportation load. This suggested that a higher capacity truck had

lower emissions and is more energy efficient than a lower capacity truck. For railways,

72

the impact values were even lower than 10 times that of a 28 ton capacity truck. Also a
direct relationship between the distance and impact values was observed for both the
transport system. Table 12 displays the minimum distance values responsible for emitting
1 kg. equivalent of burdens for global warming, aquatic acidiﬁcation and aquatic
ecotoxicity. For energy consumption, the values show the minimum distance that lead to
a consumption of 1 M] of non renewable energy. These values are average distance
values calculated for PLA, PET and PS containers. (See Appendix B for distances and

transportation load values)

Table 12: Minimum distance responsible for emitting 1 kg. equivalent burdens while using an
empty 16 and 28 ton capacity truck and rail diesel locomotive.

 

 

 

 

 

Minimum distance Minimum distance
Im act ca t o responsible for responsible for Rail diesel
p cg ry emission by a 16 ton emission by a 28 ton locomotive
capacity truck capacity truck
Global warming
(per kg C02.eq) 23 kms 38 kms 428 kms
Aquatic
acidiﬁcation 3300 kms 5200 kms 43650 kms
(per kg SOz.eq)
Aquatic CCO‘OXici‘y 0 06 kms 0 1 kms 1913 kms
(per kg TEG.eq ) ' '
Non renewable
energy 1.4 kms 2.2 kms 31.4 kms
(per MJ surplus.eq )

 

A 16 ton capacity truck emits one kg of COz.eq after it travels a distance of 23 kms, while
a 28 ton capacity truck travels 38 kms to emit similar burdens. This indicates that for

same distances, a 16 ton capacity truck would have more emissions than a 28 ton capacity

73

truck. For railways, this minimum distance was 428 kms, indicating lower emissions than
the trucks. A similar trend was observed for other impact categories. Table 13 gives the

global warming emission values for a transportation load of 1 ton.km.

Table 13: Global warming values per ton.km transportation load for 16, 28 ton capacity truck and
rail diesel locomotive.

 

Transport mode Global warming emission values
per ton.km transportation load.

 

 

 

16 ton capacity truck 0.35 kg C02.eq / ton.km
18 ton capacity truck 0.21 kg C02.eq / ton.km
Rail diesel locomotive 0.015 kg C02.eq / ton.km

 

The above table suggested that railways were the most viable transport medium from the
emission standpoint with global warming emission value of 0.015 kg COzeq per
transportation load of 1 ton.km while a 16 and 28 ton capacity truck emitted 0.35 kg and
0.21 kg CO; eq for the same load. A different scenario that could have altered the results
was if the containers were exported out of the United States through a ship or an airplane.
The transportation system played a major role in a life cycle assessment study and this
stage forms an important factor in the determination of the environment viability of a
product life journey. It was quite evident that a local market, with respect to the exporter,
using railways as the mode of transportation would have the lowest emissions

irrespective of the packaging material used for the application.

74

References

1) Woods. L, Cooper. J, Modeling commercial transport In LCA, University of
Washington Design for Environment laboratory, Seattle, WA. USA.

2) Lelievre. H, Life Cycle Assessment of transport packaging systems.“ The case study of wooden
Crates for ﬁuits and vegetables, Transpak proceedings, 1999.

3) Brookes. K. C, A comparative LCA on starch and Polyethylene foams, Masters thesis,
Department of Chemical Engineering, Michigan State University, 2005.

4) Mapquest, Mapquest Inc, Denver Colorado.2005

5) http://www.trainweb.com/cgi-bin/photos/showpic l .cgi?/maps/ammap2.jpg+maps/index.htm
last accessed 04/20/08

6) ISO 14040 (2004), Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles
and Framework 2004.

7) ISO 14041 (2004), Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Goal and scope
deﬁnition and inventory analysis 2004.

8) ISO 14042 — Environmental management - Life cycle assessment — Life Cycle Impact
Assessment 2004.

9) ISO 14043 (2004) Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Life Cycle
Interpretation 2004.

10) ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment —
Requirements and guidelines 2006.

11) ISO 14049 (2004) Examples of application of ISO 14041 to goal and scope deﬁnition and
inventory analysis 2004.

12) ASTM D 7075 — 04 — Standard practice for evaluating and reporting environmental
performance of bio based products 1998.

13) SimaPro Soﬂware version 7.1.6.Pre Consultants bv, Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2006.

75

 

Chapter 6: Conclusions

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool which relates a material performance
to its sustainability as an environmentally viable option when compared to its functional
contemporaries. Although there are voids in the quantitative and qualitative
interpretations, the ultimate implication of an LCA is not to derive a result but to provide
with a perspective which would aid in an imperative planning process. This thesis has
analyzed and presented separately, the emissions liberated during the different stages of
the life cycle journey of PLA, PET and PS clarnshell containers for packaging of
strawberries.

For the nine different impact categories considered, PET had highest impact
values for global warming, ozone layer depletion, aquatic eutrophication, aquatic
ecotoxicity, energy, and land occupation. PLA had overall higher values for aquatic
acidiﬁcation, respiratory organics, and respiratory inorganics and comparative high
values than PS for global warming, ozone layer depletion, aquatic eutrophication, and
land occupation. As compared to PLA, PS had higher values for aquatic ecotoxicity and
energy. The resin production stage for PLA had the least contribution for global
warming, aquatic ecotoxicity, and energy consumption whereas it contributed the highest
for aquatic acidiﬁcation, respiratory organics and respiratory inorganics. The amount of
resin required to meet the functional unit of the study was 32.64 kgs for PET, 30.54 kgs
for PLA and 24.96 kgs for PS. The emissions during the extrusion and thermoforming
stage for the three polymers followed the same trend as the functional unit with PET
having the highest contribution followed by PLA and PS. Of all the stages, the

transportation of the strawberry ﬁlled containers from the exporter to the market

76

contributed to about 76% of the total impact. Out of the remaining 24%, the other stages
having impacts in the order from highest to lowest were resin production, transportation
of resins from manufacturer to converter and transportation of container to the ﬁller,
thermoforming operation, extrusion of resin into sheets, and electricity production.
Distances and the transportation system were the two controlling factors for the burdens
emitted during this stage. The emission values increased with a subsequent increase in the
distance between the exporter and the market. Also, a 28 ton capacity truck had lesser
impact than a 16 ton capacity truck while transporting the containers from the exporter to
market.

The study has found that transportation is the main contributor to impacts
caused by the three package systems on the environment. Reduction in the distances
between the resin manufacturer, the converter, the exporter and the market and proper
selection of the mode of transport could have a positive effect on the ecological value of
the containers.

For future work, the thesis suggests work and research in the different areas
which would aid in determining the environmental viable option among the three
containers. The data for the resin production for PET and PS reﬂected European data
while for PLA it was US speciﬁc. Hence, for PET and PS, US speciﬁc data is needed.
The extrusion and thermoforming operations for converting the resins into sheets and
then manufacturing the containers would result in different emission and energy
consumption depending on the polymer matrix. Speciﬁc data with regards to machinery
and the processing parameters during conversion is also an important criterion to be

considered. For transportation the distances and the type of transport vehicle are the areas

77

to be looked upon. Another scenario that could have altered the results was if the
containers were exported out of United States through a ship or an airplane. For PET and
PS, speciﬁc data for landﬁll, incineration and recycling is necessary and for PLA,
speciﬁc data on emissions and commercialization of composting, as the end of life fate,
for the biodegradable polymer would be something that could be looked upon in the

future.

78

Append ix A
Lite Cycle Assessment glossary

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) — A systematic and scientiﬁc approach which evaluates the
environmental viability of a product, process or an activity. It considers the entire life
cycle from the raw material to the ﬁnal disposal of a particular product.

Goal of the study — The goal of the study is stated to deﬁne the intentional application of
the LCA study.

Scope of the study — The scope of the study deﬁnes the extent to which the study is
performed. It marks the staring and the ending point of the study. The scope also outlines
the geographical coverage of the study and the impact categories considered for the
evaluation.

Functional Unit — This is the unit of comparison on the basis of which the comparison
between products or its functions are carried out.

System — Stepwise progression of operations or processes which forms an entire life
cycle of a particular product.

Life Cycle Inventory — List of quantiﬁed amounts of the chemical emissions (affecting
air, water and soil) liberated during raw material consumption, energy utilized and waste
generated during a process or an activity of different stages of a system.

Impact categories— Categorization of the environmental impacts/effects caused by the
emissions caused by the different processes of a system.

Impact indicator — Representative potential unit of an impact category which is prime
responsible for the effect caused by that impact category.

Classification — Assignment of the results of life cycle inventory into speciﬁc impact
categories.

Characterization — Characterization of the magnitude of the classiﬁed emissions of an
impact category with speciﬁc factors so to obtain a single value of an impact indicator.

Impact Assessment — Systematic assessment of the effects caused due to the impact
categories.

Normalization - Conversion of the results of Impact assessment values of different

indicators into common unitless values so as to have a comparison between the effects
caused by different impact categories.

79

Sensitivity analysis — A process which analyzes the variations of the data which
ultimately affects the ﬁnal results.

80

APPENDIX B

Calculations for obtainingotal amount of resin required to man utacture
1000 Clamshell containers ofPLA, PET and PS

Weights at the Clamshell containers used [or the study

Weight of empty PLA container + lid = 29.6 gms
Weight of empty PET container + lid = 31.5 grns
Weight of empty PS container + lid = 24.2 gms

Quantity of the total amount of resin required to man utacture the
containers to meet the [unctional unit

Amount of resin required for manufacturing 1000 PLA containers = 29.6 kgs + 3.19%
scrap = 30.54 kgs.

Amount of resin required for manufacturing 1000 PET containers = 31.5 kgs + 3.61%
scrap = 32.64 kgs.

Amount of resin required for manufacturing 1000 PS containers = 29.6 kgs + 3.15%
scrap = 24.963 kgs.

Calculations [or energy requirement for the thermoforming operation

Formula: Length * width“ thickness” density* (speciﬁc heat * temperature difference +
heat of fusion)

Length = 1200 inch /min (assumption)
Width = 40 inch (1 m) (assumption)
Thickness = 0.018 in. (assumption)

For PLA

1200 inch/min *40 inch * 0.018 in *0.0451b/ cu.inch* (0.39 btu/lb F * (230 — 70 F) +
11.63 Btu/lb.

= 2878.29 Btu / min

= 3.036 MJ

As per the above dimensions the total volume of the polymers is 17.25 kgs of PLA
18.91 kgs of PET and 14.49 kgs of PLA.

For PET

1200 inch/min *40 inch * 0.018 in *0.051b/ cu.inch* ( 0.44 btu/lb F * (325 — 70 F) +
14.63 Btu/1b

= 5479.06 Btu / min

= 5.78 MJ

81

For PS

1200 inch/min *40 inch * 0.018 in *0.038lb/ cu.inch* ( 0.54 btu/lb F * (360 — 70 F) + 0
= 5141.49 Btu / min

= 5.42MJ

Therefore Energy requirement for thermoforming of 1 kg of each polymer = 0.18 MJ
(PLA), 0.3] MI (PET) and 0.37 MJ (PS)

Distances and calculations involved in calculating transportation load
from resin suppliers to converters and converters to strawberrv exporter

For PLA:

Distances between Natureworks LLC, 650, Industrial road, P.O box 564 Blair, NE
68008 and Pinnacle Plastic containers,1151, Pacific ave, Oxnard, CA - 93 033 = 2592
kms

Transportation load from Natureworks LLC, 65 0, Industrial road, PO box 564 Blair,
NE 68008 and Pinnacle Plastic containers,1151, Paciﬁc ave, Oxnard, CA — 2592 *
30.54 = 79159.68 kg.km.

Distances between Pinnacle Plastic containers,1151, Pacific ave, Oxnard, CA,950 77
and Driscolls Strawberry Associates,P.O box 50045, Watson ville, CA 950 77 = 470kms

Transportation load from Pinnacle Plastic containers,1151, Paciﬁc ave, Oxnard,
CA, 95 0 77 and Driscolls Strawberry Associates, P.O box 50045, Watson ville, CA 950 77
= 470*29.6 = 13912 kg. kms.

For PET:
Distances between Eastman Chemical Corporation, Columbia,SC,29202 and Sambraillo
Pkg, 800, Walker street, Watson ville, CA,95 0 77 = 4251 kms

Transportation load from Eastman Chemical Corporation,Columbia,SC,29202 and
Sambraillo Pkg, 800, Walker street, Watson ville, CA,950 77 = 4251*32.64 = 1387527
kg.km

Distance between Sambraillo Pkg, 800, Walker street, Watsonville, CA, 95 0 77 and
Driscolls Strawberry Associatesfﬂ box 50045, Watson ville, CA 950 77 = 1.92 kms

Transportation load from Sambraillo Pkg, 800, Walker street, Watsonville, CA,95 0 77 and
Driscolls Strawberry Associates,P.O box 5 0045, Watson ville, CA 95077 = 1.92*31.5 =
60.48 kg.km

For PS:

Distances between INE OS corporation JolietJL — 60434 and Sambraillo Pkg,
800, Walker street, Watson ville, CA,95 0 77 = 3509 kms

82

Transportation load from INE OS corporation Joliet,]L — 60434 and Sambraillo Pkg,
800, Walker street, Watsonville,CA,95077 =3509*24.96 = 87584.64 kg.km

Distances between Sambraillo Pkg, 800, Walker street, Watsonville, CA,95 0 7 7 and
Driscolls Strawberry Associates,P.O box 5 0045, Watson ville, CA 950 77 = 1.92 kms

Transportation load from Sambraillo Pkg, 800, Walker street, Watson ville, CA,95 0 7 7 and
Driscolls Strawberry Associates,P. 0 box 5 0045, Watson ville, CA 950 77 = 24.2 * 1.92 =
46.46 kg kms.

pistances and calculations involved in calculating transportation load
@om strawberry exporter to assumed Walmart distribution centers (empty

containersz

For PLA:

7.4 kgs * 1522 kms = 11262.8 Kg kms.- Tacoma,WA

7.4 kgs * 2230.78 kms = 16507.77 Kg kms.- Loveland, CO
7.4 kgs * 5326.59 kms = 39416.77 Kg kms.- Hooksett, NH
7.4 kgs "‘ 4664.61 kms = 34518.11 Kg kms.- Lakeland, FL
Total for 29.6 kgs, total distance = 101705.45 kg.kms

For PET:

7.9 kgs * 1522 kms = 12023.8 Kg kms.- Tacoma,WA

7.9 kgs * 2230.78 kms = 17623.16 Kg kms.- Loveland, CO
7.9 kgs * 5326.59 kms = 42080.06 Kg kms.- Hooksett, NH
7.9 kgs * 4664.61 kms = 36850.42 Kg kms.- Lakeland, FL
Total for 31.5 kgs, total distance = 108577.44 kg.kms

For PS:

6.05 kgs * 1522 kms = 9208.1 Kg kms.- Tacoma,WA

6.05 kgs * 2230.78 kms = 13496.22 Kg kms.- Loveland, CO
6.05 kgs * 5326.59 kms = 32225.87 Kg kms.- Hooksett, NH
6.05 kgs * 4664.61 kms = 28220.89 Kg kms.- Lakeland, FL

Total for 24.2 kgs, total distance = 83151.08 kg.kms

83

Distances and calculations involved in calculating transportation load
from stra wberrv exporter to assumed Walmart distribution centers
(containers with food)

For PLA

(7.4 + 113.5) * 1362.82 = 164765 kg km. - Tacoma.WA
(7.4 + 113.5) * 2070.78 = 2503573 kg km. — Loveland, CO
(7.4 + 113.5) * 5166.59 = 6246407 kg km. — NH

(7.4 + 113.5) * 4504.61 = 5446073 kg km. - FL

The total distance for PLA becomes 16570103 kg km.

For PET

(7.9 + 113.5) * 1362.82 = 1654463 kg km. — Tacoma.WA
(7.9 + 113.5) * 2070.78 = 251392.7 kg km. — Loveland, CO
(7.9 + 113.5) * 5166.59 = 627224 kg km. — NH

(7.9 + 113.5) * 4504.61 = 546858.44 kg km.- FL.

The total distance for PET becomes l66356l.4 kg km

For PS

(6.05 + 113.5) * 1362.82 = 162925.13 kg km. -— Tacoma.WA
(6.05 + 113.5) * 2070.78 = 2475618 kg km. — Loveland, CO
(6.05 +113.5)* 5166.59 = 6176658 kg km. —NH

(6.05 + 113.5) * 4504.61 = 538526.] kg km. - FL

The total distance for PS becomes 1639319 kg km.

84

APPENDIX C: A typical inventory emission data sheet.

 

 

 

Carparl'iglp'PlAtontamrl‘ecyde‘; 199111911: 1mm 2002+ V2021 ma 2002+

No 51119191119 16111191111191 18191919961911: Lli HAcontu'ierie
cycle
1 Enerqymosscdurflc vdiembiomass Raw biotic MJ
2 1991,11go1nd R111 biotit mg 307
3 Wood,l1111111,sra11111g Raw biotic on 136
4 1Woodj11irt1;§&1611111111 1 Raw biotic 11113 364
5 9766598861911911161111113 Raw biolir 111113 14.3
6 1Culi1oi11175aidd191,1'118r11 1 Raw 1191 g 163
7 Energy, 11119111, 691mm 11911 1111 m a
a Erergmala Raw 1111 111 96.9
9 11111111111111, 21111111191132, Il‘lthaudaoremgomd Raw ingomd g 150
10 11111111611119.11119119116" 1 111 Ran hgoird 111 2.01
11 5919.111511561686911169116 Raw 1191111111 11 335
12 liasarjgdﬁi 1 1 Raw ingomd g 16.2
13 Boraxmqomd Raw inwomd mg 8.31
14 {9169.11 orwnd 9.111 'n oromd h; 1.34
15 019111111, 25.511d11o11oe, 11.611111111111969, inoround Raw 1111911111 11 6.97
16 11115111915916 1 1 1 Raw inoround mg 2.11
17 0119681, 1111911111 1 Raw Ing'ou'd pg 177
18 1C|ay, 191119199qu 1 Raw 11111111111 g 71.8
19 Clay, 111111196196, 111111111111” Raw in gourd 11: LB
20 Coal,brom,i1;io1m Raw 111161111 kg 4.09
21 C1191, hard, 11911911191, '11 1191111 Raw in yard lo 3.96
122 Cooa,1r111181111 1 11111 1191911111 mg 1.71
1231 Coluiwtejoouid 11 1 1 11 1 1111911111 111161111 mg 26.1
2141 11Coop91}1ii19§911191r69,619.36%mmE2E-316h1111119819,111qo111d 11111 1111191111 9 1.29
25 1169111191,11.1é1161111s11n118,tuti.39°7.9111117919126-3161111111169919,11111911111 1111911 111111911111 o 7.15
215 Copper, 1.4291. '11 11111191, Cu 0.91% andrio 3.263111. 111111119 119, 11 gourd R911 11 good 9 1.99
27 Copper,2.19°/.1111n119,cu1.96%aiidros.2E-3°/.i1mideoie,iwo1m Raw 11119111 9 9.41
n 1019191119311111111 1 11911 1111111111 pg 163
291 066118.11169111111 11 711 1 Raw hound g 7.22
130111 WNW 1 1 Raw inoouid pg 5.21
311 1 1 '6111‘1‘8316111'1111936'811111111111169919, 11119111111 111 11 Raw ingomd mg 221
32 7111111111, 41,511.11 9113695133111111119 11191, 11111111111111 R911 '11 good 1111 104

 

85

APPENDIX D: PLA Life cycle tree

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

86

APPENDIX E: PET Life cycle tree

 

 

 

 

87

APPENDIX F: PS Life cycle tree

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

llllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllll'llllllll'lllllllll