Assessing environmental trade-offs in packaging systems for infant formula delivery: A cradle-to-gate plus end-of-life life cycle assessment

被引:1
作者
Lewis, Abigale [1 ]
Bher, Anibal [1 ]
Joshi, Satish [2 ]
Daum, Matthew [1 ]
Auras, Rafael [1 ]
机构
[1] Michigan State Univ, Sch Packaging, 448 Wilson Rd, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
[2] Michigan State Univ, Dept Agr Food & Resource Econ, 448 Wilson Rd, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
关键词
Stochastic multi -attribute analysis; SMAA; Circular footprint formula; CFF; Recycling allocation; LCA; ANALYSIS SMAA; FOOTPRINT; PRODUCT; BUTTER;
D O I
10.1016/j.spc.2024.04.011
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
An LCA study was conducted comparing three packaging systems to deliver infant formula, including primary (plastic, composite, and steel containers), secondary (corrugated box), and tertiary (pallet) levels, all manufactured and distributed in North America. The project goal involved quantifying each system's environmental footprint (EF), evaluating the effect of end-of-life (EoL) modeling in LCA results, and interpreting trade-offs among environmental impact indicators. The functional unit was defined as a packaging system delivering 1000 g of infant formula from cradle-to-gate, plus EoL. The three packages, including EoL, were modeled using SimaPro 9.3.03, with TRACI 2.1 V1.06 Midpoint being the primary impact assessment method. The LCA was performed according to ISO 14040/14044 standards. EoL models included the cut-off method, the 50/50 allocation, and the circular footprint formula (CFF). The stochastic multi-attribute analysis (SMAA) method was implemented to evaluate the trade-offs among the midpoint indicators. The primary package significantly contributed to the three systems in all the evaluated categories. Adjusting the EoL models influences the overall results when comparing the packaging systems' impacts. Contributions in each category vary slightly, with minimal changeover from the highest or lowest package footprints in EoL models. The SMAA ranking preference for all EoL methods indicates that the plastic container is preferred, having the lowest EF with >50 % probability. Environmental impacts of the packages involved trade-off discussion. With the initial EoL methodology (cut-off method), Package 1 (plastic) shows the highest impact in 4 of the 10 impact categories, Package 2 (composite) in 2 of the 10 categories, and Package 3 (steel) in the remaining 4 categories. With the 50/50 allocation and CFF EoL methodologies, different conclusions were reached about the impacts of each package; however, SMAA results found that ranking of the packages within EoL methodologies did not change the conclusions that the plastic package is preferred.
引用
收藏
页码:445 / 459
页数:15
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2018, Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2015 Fact Sheet Assessing Trends in Material Generation, Recycling, Composting, Combustion with Energy Recovery and Landfilling in the United States
[2]  
Auras R.A., 2023, Life Cycle of Sustainable Packaging: From Design to End-of-Life, V2022, P179
[3]   Are consumers aware of products' environmental impacts? Different results between life cycle assessment data and consumers' opinions: the case study of organic Parmigiano Reggiano and its packaging [J].
Borghesi, Giulia ;
Stefanini, Roberta ;
Vignali, Giuseppe .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD ENGINEERING, 2022, 18 (03) :185-192
[4]  
Broadbent J., 2022, Abbott Laboratories to Set up New Factory Amid Infant-formula Shortage Plaguing US Parents
[5]   Environmental Sustainability of Fluid Milk Delivery Systems in the United States [J].
Burek, Jasmina ;
Kim, Daesoo ;
Nutter, Darin ;
Selke, Susan ;
Auras, Rafael ;
Cashman, Sarah ;
Sauer, Beverly ;
Thoma, Greg .
JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, 2018, 22 (01) :180-195
[6]   Powdered Baby Formula Sold in North America: Assessing the Environmental Impact [J].
Cadwell, Karin ;
Blair, Anna ;
Turner-Maffei, Cindy ;
Gabel, Maret ;
Brimdyr, Kajsa .
BREASTFEEDING MEDICINE, 2020, 15 (10) :671-679
[7]   Life cycle assessments of wine and spirit packaging at the product and the municipal scale: a Toronto, Canada case study [J].
Cleary, Julian .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2013, 44 :143-151
[8]  
Ekvall T., 2020, Modeling recycling in life cycle assessment
[9]  
European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Institute for Environment and Sustainability, 2010, International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) handbook general guide for life cycle assessment: detailed guidance, DOI DOI 10.2788/38479
[10]   Development and testing of the Product Environmental Footprint Milk Tool: A comprehensive LCA tool for dairy products [J].
Famiglietti, Jacopo ;
Guerci, Matteo ;
Proserpio, Carlo ;
Ravaglia, Pieter ;
Motta, Mario .
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2019, 648 :1614-1626