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
[11]  
Jorgensen A M. M., 1996, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, V1, P218, DOI [DOI 10.1007/BF02978698, 10.1007/BF02978698]
[12]  
Jungbluth N., 2000, INT J LIFE CYCLE ASS, V5, P134, DOI [DOI 10.1007/BF02978609, 10.1007/bf02978609]
[13]  
Korhonen M.-R., 2007, FINNISH ENV
[14]   Plastic waste management in the context of a European recycling society: Comparing results and uncertainties in a life cycle perspective [J].
Lazarevic, David ;
Aoustin, Emmanuelle ;
Buclet, Nicolas ;
Brandt, Nils .
RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2010, 55 (02) :246-259
[15]   A simplified life cycle assessment of re-usable and single-use bulk transit packaging [J].
Lee, SG ;
Xu, X .
PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, 2004, 17 (02) :67-83
[16]   A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Disposable and Reusable Packaging for the Distribution of Italian Fruit and Vegetables [J].
Levi, Marinella ;
Cortesi, Sara ;
Vezzoli, Carlo ;
Salvia, Giuseppe .
PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, 2011, 24 (07) :387-400
[17]   Assessment of the environmental profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell containers using LCA methodology [J].
Madival, Santosh ;
Auras, Rafael ;
Singh, Sher Paul ;
Narayan, Ramani .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2009, 17 (13) :1183-1194
[18]   Land use indicators in life cycle assessment A case study on beer production [J].
Mattila, Tuomas ;
Helin, Tuomas ;
Antikainen, Riina .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2012, 17 (03) :277-286
[19]   Decisions to reduce greenhouse gases from agriculture and product transport: LCA case study of organic and conventional wheat [J].
Meisterling, Kyle ;
Samaras, Constantine ;
Schweizer, Vanessa .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2009, 17 (02) :222-230
[20]  
Motiva, 2004, YKS KOHT CO2 PAAST L