Environmental impact assessment of milk packaging in Canada

被引:7
作者
Sun, Jon-Paul [1 ]
Calahoo, Courtney [2 ]
Brown, Colby [1 ]
White, Mary Anne [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Dalhousie Univ, Dept Phys & Atmospher Sci, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada
[2] Dalhousie Univ, Dept Chem, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada
[3] Dalhousie Univ, Clean Technol Res Inst, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
Milk packaging; Life cycle assessment; Embodied energy; GHG emissions; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; SUSTAINABILITY; EMISSIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129347
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The present study reports quantitative environmental impact assessments for types of milk packaging presently available in Canada: 4 L packages of pillow pouches ('milk bags', containing three 1.33 L pillow pouches), 4 L and 2 L high-density polyethylene (HDPE) jugs, and 2 L and 1 L screw-cap gable-top liquid packaging board (LPB) cartons. The purpose of the investigation was to inform consumers and other stakeholders of the relative environmental impacts of the milk packaging choice. The simplified life cycle assessment consisted of quantification of the energy consumption, global warming potential (quantified as CO2 equivalent emissions) and water consumption associated with the functional unit of milk use for one average Canadian household of 2.6 people for one year (163.4 L). The steps considered included primary production and processing of the materials, and delivery to the city (Toronto, Ontario, Canada or Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) where they would be filled with milk and the milk would be consumed. Four different end-of-life scenarios for each of the five different types of packaging were considered: 100% recycled; 100% incinerated (where the energy of incineration is captured with 100% efficiency); 100% landfill (CO2 not released); and actual recycling rate at that location, with remainder in landfill. The embodied energy, GHG emissions and water consumption factors all indicate that pillow pouches have the lowest impact of the investigated types of packaging for milk in Canada, regardless of location. The main reason for the significantly lower impact of the pouches is their lower mass per functional unit compared with jugs and cartons. Pillow pouches are better across all impact categories than the alternatives, even if the pillow pouches are disposed in the landfill or incinerated and the alternatives are fully recycled.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2020, ANAL BEV CONT COLL C
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2016, STAT CANADA POPULATI
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2019, SUSTAINABLE LIVING
[4]  
Ashby M.F., 2013, Materials and the Environment, V2nd, DOI DOI 10.1016/C2010-0-66554-0
[5]   Environmental impacts of milk production and processing in the Eastern Alps: A "cradle-to-dairy gate" LCA approach [J].
Berton, M. ;
Bovolenta, S. ;
Corazzin, M. ;
Gallo, L. ;
Pinterits, S. ;
Ramanzin, M. ;
Ressi, W. ;
Spigarelli, C. ;
Zuliani, A. ;
Sturaro, E. .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2021, 303
[6]   Environmental sustainability of liquid food packaging: Is there a gap between Danish consumers' perception and learnings from life cycle assessment? [J].
Boesen, Soren ;
Bey, Niki ;
Niero, Monia .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2019, 210 :1193-1206
[7]   LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF BEVERAGE PACKAGING [J].
Brock, Alice ;
Williams, Ian D. .
DETRITUS, 2020, 13 :47-61
[8]  
Brown D., 2018, SPIRE MAGAZINE 0322, P2018
[9]   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
[10]  
Cornall J., 2021, Dairy Reporter