Reusable plastic crate or recyclable cardboard box? A comparison of two delivery systems

被引:65
作者
Koskela, Sirkka [1 ]
Dahlbo, Helena [1 ]
Judl, Jachym [1 ]
Korhonen, Marja-Riitta [1 ]
Niininen, Mervi [2 ]
机构
[1] Finnish Environm Inst SYKE, Ctr Sustainable Consumpt & Prod, POB 140, FI-00251 Helsinki, Finland
[2] Stora Enso Oyj, Res Ctr Imatra, FI-55800 Imatra, Finland
关键词
Packaging; Transportation; Delivery; Life cycle assessment; Corrugated cardboard; Plastic; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; TRANSPORT;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.045
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
During a product's entire life cycle the significance of packaging varies in terms of environmental impacts. From the perspective of companies which manufacture packaging or packaging has an important role in their value chain it can be a relevant issue to focus on in their efforts to improve the environmental performance of their activities. The aim of this study was to compare the life cycle environmental impacts of a real product (bread) delivery system using either reusable HPDE plastic crates or recyclable corrugated cardboard (CCB) boxes for product transportation. In this paper we focused on the delivery systems (not the delivered product) covering the manufacturing of the crates/boxes, their use, the delivery routes from bakery to retailers and waste management/recycling of the crates/boxes. As a result we concluded that the recyclable CCB box system was a more environmentally friendly option than the reusable HPDE plastic crate system in all the studied impact categories based on the defined boundaries and assumptions. Transportation played a very important role in the environmental impacts of the analysed systems. Therefore, changes, e.g. in the weights of products and their secondary packaging or the transportation distances could affect the results considerably. (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:83 / 90
页数:8
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]  
Andersson K., 1999, INT J LIFE CYCLE ASS, V4, P25, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF02979392
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2010, EC DAT V 2 2
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2010, ILCD Handbook
[4]   Comparison of different normalised LCIA results and their feasibility in communication [J].
Dahlbo, Helena ;
Koskela, Sirkka ;
Pihkola, Hanna ;
Nors, Minna ;
Federley, Maija ;
Seppala, Jyri .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2013, 18 (04) :850-860
[5]  
Goedkoop M.J., 2009, RECIPE 2009 LIFE CYC
[6]   Evaluating the global warming potential of the fresh produce supply chain for strawberries, romaine/cos lettuces (Lactuca sativa), and button mushrooms (Agaricus bisporus) in Western Australia using life cycle assessment (LCA) [J].
Gunady, Maria G. A. ;
Biswas, Wahidul ;
Solah, Vicky A. ;
James, Anthony P. .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2012, 28 :81-87
[7]   LCA data quality: Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis [J].
Guo, M. ;
Murphy, R. J. .
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2012, 435 :230-243
[8]  
Heijungs R., 2004, Complexity and Integrated Resources Management. Transactions of the 2nd Biennial Meeting of the International Environmental Modelling and Software Society, V1, P332
[9]  
ISO, 2006, 14040 ISO, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2011.01.007
[10]   Life cycle impact assessment and interpretation of municipal solid waste management scenarios based on the midpoint and endpoint approaches [J].
Yi, Sora ;
Kurisu, Kiyo H. ;
Hanaki, Keisuke .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2011, 16 (07) :652-668