Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Environmental and Economic Assessment of
Management of Plastic Packaging Waste
Master Thesis
30 ECTS
Author:
Aikaterini-Nafsika Softa
s111129
Supervisors:
Thomas Fruergaard Astrup
Veronica Martinez Sanchez
Kostyantyn Pivnenko
September 2013
ii
- Blank page -
iii
DTU Environment
Department of Environmental Engineering
Technical University of Denmark
Miljoevej, Building 113
DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby
Tlf: 4525 1600
Fax: 4593 2850
E-post: [email protected]
www.env.dtu.dk
iv
- Blank page -
v
Preface
The present document is a Master thesis report counting for 30 ECTS and completing
the master program in Environmental Engineering at the Technical University of
Denmark (DTU). The study carried out from the middle of March until the end of
September 2013 at DTU Environment, under the supervision of the Associate
professor Thomas Fruergaard Astrup and the PhD students Veronica Martinez
Sanchez and Kostyantyn Pivnenko.
The project provides an environmental and economic assessment of waste
management options of take-away food plastic packaging and it was performed in
collaboration with the Municipality of Copenhagen under the frame of Plastic ZERO
project. The project’s case study is the Sticks’ n Sushi restaurants in Copenhagen.
The report is divided into 10 main chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the problem
assessed in the project while Chapter 2 provides background information. Chapter 3
introduces the project and key parts of it. Chapter 4 and 5 describe the inventory of
the environmental and economic part of the study respectively. Chapter 6 presents the
results of the study while Chapter 7 presents the sensitivity analysis performed in
crucial points of the environmental part of the project. Chapter 8 includes the
discussion of the different parts of the report while Chapter 9 gathers the conclusions
of the study. Chapter 10 proposes ideas and suggestions for future studies.
vi
vii
Acknowledgement
I would like to deeply thank my supervisors Thomas Fruergaard Astrup, Veronica
Martinez Sanchez and Kostyantyn Pivnenko for their precious guidance in the course
of the project and for the time they spend on our long discussions and meetings. In
addition, I would like to express my particular thanksgiving to Mette Skovraard who
trusted me for the performance of the present project, as well as Marianne Kristine
Kjærgaard Bigum for being my contact person in the Municipality of Copenhagen and
providing me with guidance and relevant information when needed. I would also like
to thank Jacob Gaard for providing me with starting information in the beginning of
my research and Sticks’ n Sushi restaurants for being my case study.
A special thanks goes to very helpful Niels Nielsen from Donplast A/S, who gave me
the opportunity to visit his packaging production facility and provided me with a large
volume of information concerning not only his facility but generally the followed
route of the production process. An equally strong thanks goes to my contact person
from the foil’s production industry whose name is not mentioned, respecting his
willingness. I would like to sincerely thank him for all the important data he gave me
as well as for his patience and the time he spend to answer all my questions and
explain to me the difference of crucial points of the processes. Moreover, I would like
to thank Danskretursystem for the provided information concerning the transportation
of the sorted plastic.
It would be an omission not to express my thanks to Valentina Bisinella and Anders
Damgaard for their significant advice and help in order to face the software’s issues.
Additionally, I would like to thank Alessio Boldrin for his input in a crucial point of
the thesis.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my friends for their support especially during
the last months of the thesis’s implementation and mainly my family for providing me
all kinds of support during the whole period of my master studies.
Aikaterini-Nafsika Softa
DTU Environment
September 2013
viii
- Blank page -
ix
Abstract
The large volume of plastic packaging ending to the municipal waste is a challenge
concerning the most beneficial way of treatment. Plastic ZERO project corporates
with public and private sector for the reduction, prevention and recycling of plastic
waste. Under this framework, the present project focused on the disposal alternatives
of take-away plastic food packaging. The type of assessed plastic is PET applying to
the packaging used in the Sticks’ n Sushi case study.
The study is a combined life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC)
study aiming to assess and compare the performance of four waste management
alternatives of the plastic take-away packaging of 1000 equally amounted meals. An
additional goal was the gathering of representative, state-of-the-art data for the set-up
of the environmental model, sourcing directly from the involved industries.
The first three scenarios referred to the currently used one-use packaging while the
forth scenario referred to the option of 20 timed-reusable packaging. The first
scenario depicted today’s applicable situation in Copenhagen, where the waste is
collected and taken for incineration with energy recovery. The second scenario
represented a separated collection of the used packaging and its transportation to UK
for conventional recycling. The output of the scenario was intended to be used in
electronic packaging applications. Scenario 3 followed the same route as Scenario 2
with an additional supercleaning step after the conventional recycling. The output of
the process was intended to be used for food packaging applications. Scenario 4
referred to packaging used for 20 times followed by disposal to incineration with
energy recovery. Due to comparative reasons the upstream phase of the additional
kilos of packaging used in the first three scenarios, had to be included in the modeling
of Scenario 1,2,3.
The environmental modeling was realized by using the EASETECH, LCA tool. The
environmental impacts were calculated with the ‘’ILCD Recommended‘’ method and
were assessed for 12 impact categories. Most of the data used in the environmental
part of the study were obtained directly from the involved industries, the Municipality
of Copenhagen or from scientific papers. EASETECH, EASEWASTE and Ecoinvent
databases were also used as sources for the background processes of the project.
The economic assessment was performed in Excel spread shits. The data were
obtained from a variety of sources including the involved industries, reports, personal
market research and websites.
The environmental assessment showed that Scenario 4 is by far the most beneficial
option, followed by Scenario 3, Scenario 1 and finally Scenario 2. The ranking stayed
the same in two implemented sensitivity analysis which assessed the system’s
performance after reducing the times of reuse to the half and after modeling a
different, more loading upstream phase.
x
Under the economic point of view, Scenario 4 was still appeared to be the less costly
option while Scenario 2 appeared to be the most expensive solution.
The combined LCA and LCC showed that Scenario 4 and reuse are the most
beneficial approaches contrary to Scenario 2 which is the least preferable option.
xi
Abbreviations
CC Climate change
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
CO2 Carbon oxide
DAR Depletion of abiotic resources
DARF Depletion of abiotic resources, fossil
DK Denmark
DKK Danish krona
EFSA European Food Safety Authority
EP Eutrophication potential
ET Ecotoxicity, total
EU European Union
F.U. Functional Unit
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FE Freshwater eutrophication
GB Great Britain
HCFCs Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
HTC Human toxicity, carcinogenic
HTNC Human toxicity, non-carcinogenic
IV Intrinsic Viscosity
Kg kilos
l liters
NIR Near Infra-Red
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
PCR-PET Post Consumer PET
PET Polyethylene terephthalate
PIRP Postindustrial recycle PET
xii
PM Particulate matter
POF Photochemical oxidant formation
RER Europe
SC Supercleaned
SCR Supercleaned recycled
SOD Stratospheric ozone depletion
SOx Sulfur Oxides
TA Terrestrial acidification
UK United Kingdom
US United States
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
y years
xiii
Table of contents Preface ........................................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... ix
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ xi
1. Introduction and objectives .............................................................................................. 1
2. Background ........................................................................................................................ 3
2.1. Plastic Packaging ............................................................................................................. 3
2.2. Plastic food packaging .................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1. PET in food packaging .............................................................................................. 7
2.2.2. Legislation for food contact applications ................................................................ 7
2.3 Management of plastic packaging waste ........................................................................ 8
2.3.1. Legislation ................................................................................................................ 8
2.3.2. Management in Europe ........................................................................................... 9
2.3.3. Management in Denmark ...................................................................................... 13
2.3.4. Management in Copenhagen ................................................................................ 14
2.3.5. Recycling of PET ..................................................................................................... 15
2.4. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ......................................................................................... 19
2.4.1. LCA phases ............................................................................................................. 20
2.4.2. EASETECH .............................................................................................................. 21
2.5. Life Cycle Costing (LCC) ................................................................................................. 22
2.6. Literature review of LCA and LCC on plastic packaging ................................................ 23
2.6.1. Food packaging ...................................................................................................... 23
2.6.2. Single and reusable food packaging ...................................................................... 23
2.6.3. Waste management of plastic and plastic food packaging ................................... 23
2.7. The Sticks’ n sushi case study ....................................................................................... 25
3. Goal and Scope definition ............................................................................................... 26
3.1.Goal ............................................................................................................................... 26
3.2.Scope ............................................................................................................................. 26
3.2.1. Functional unit ....................................................................................................... 26
3.2.2. Description of Scenarios ........................................................................................ 27
3.2.3. Modeling framework ............................................................................................. 33
3.2.4. System boundaries ................................................................................................ 33
3.2.5. General assumptions ............................................................................................. 35
xiv
3.2.6. Impact Assessment criteria ................................................................................... 36
3.2.7. Data source and technological scope .................................................................... 37
3.2.8. Time and geographical scope ................................................................................ 38
3.2.9. Critical review ........................................................................................................ 39
4. Life cycle Inventory analysis (LCIA) .................................................................................. 40
4.1. Studied packaging......................................................................................................... 40
4.2. Upstream processes ..................................................................................................... 41
4.2.1. Virgin PET flow ....................................................................................................... 43
4.2.2. Foil production ...................................................................................................... 43
4.2.3. Transportation from the foil production facility in UK to the packaging production
facility in DK and vice versa ............................................................................................. 44
4.2.4. Packaging production ............................................................................................ 45
4.3. Disposal phase .............................................................................................................. 46
4.3.1. Waste packaging flow ............................................................................................ 46
4.3.2. Scenario 1 .............................................................................................................. 47
4.3.3. Scenario 2 .............................................................................................................. 49
4.3.4. Scenario 3 .............................................................................................................. 55
4.3.5. Scenario 4 .............................................................................................................. 58
5. Life Cycle Costing Inventory analysis ................................................................................... 62
5.1. Upstream processes ..................................................................................................... 63
5.2 Disposal processes ......................................................................................................... 63
5.2.1. Collection ............................................................................................................... 63
5.2.2. Transportation ....................................................................................................... 64
5.2.3. Mechanical Recycling ............................................................................................ 65
5.2.4. Mechanical Recycling followed by the supercleaning process and partly pelletizing
......................................................................................................................................... 66
5.2.5. Incineration in Vestforbrænding ........................................................................... 67
5.2.6. Landfilling in UK ..................................................................................................... 67
5.2.7. Manual Dishwashing ............................................................................................. 67
5.2.8. Automatic Dishwashing ......................................................................................... 68
5.3. Assessed Scenarios ....................................................................................................... 68
6. Results ................................................................................................................................. 70
6.1 Environmental assessment ............................................................................................ 70
6.1.1. Non-toxic potential impact categories .................................................................. 70
xv
6.1.2. Toxic potential impact categories ......................................................................... 74
6.1.3. Resource depletion ................................................................................................ 76
6.2. Cost assessment ........................................................................................................... 77
7. Sensitivity analysis ............................................................................................................... 79
7.1. Times of packaging reuse ............................................................................................. 79
7.2. Upstream processes ..................................................................................................... 81
8. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 83
9. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 87
10. Future work suggestions and study improvement ............................................................ 89
References ............................................................................................................................... 90
ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................. 98
Annex A : Background information ......................................................................................... 98
A1 Graphs ............................................................................................................................ 98
A2 Applied PET supercleaning processes ............................................................................ 99
A3 Impact categories and waste management ................................................................. 101
Annex B: Upstream Processes ............................................................................................... 102
B1 EASETECH’s snapshots.................................................................................................. 102
B1.1 Virgin PET flow ....................................................................................................... 102
B1.2 Foil production ...................................................................................................... 102
B1.3 Transportation from UK to DK and vice versa ....................................................... 102
B1.4 Packaging production ............................................................................................ 103
B2 Data and calculations ................................................................................................... 103
B2.1 Differences between the different types of PET ................................................... 103
B2.2 Foil production ...................................................................................................... 103
B2.3 Packaging production ............................................................................................ 104
B2.4 Actual amounts of upstream processes ............................................................... 106
Annex C: Disposal Processes ................................................................................................. 107
C1 EASETECH’s snapshots .................................................................................................. 107
C1.1 Waste flow ............................................................................................................. 107
C1.2 Scenario 1 .............................................................................................................. 107
C1.3 Scenario 2 .............................................................................................................. 109
C1.4 Scenario 3 .............................................................................................................. 111
C1.5 Scenario 4 .............................................................................................................. 112
C2 Data and calculations ................................................................................................... 113
xvi
C2.1 Waste flow ............................................................................................................. 113
C 2.2 Manual dishwashing ............................................................................................. 113
C 2.3 Automatic dishwashing ........................................................................................ 114
Annex D: Life Cycle Costing , Detailed Calculations .............................................................. 115
D1 General Data ................................................................................................................ 115
D1.1 Materials and Energy ............................................................................................ 115
D1.2 Salaries .................................................................................................................. 116
D1.3 Truck ...................................................................................................................... 116
D1.4 Washing Equipment .............................................................................................. 116
D2 Virgin Foil production ................................................................................................... 118
D3 Packaging Production ................................................................................................... 119
D4 Collection ..................................................................................................................... 121
D5 Transportation ............................................................................................................. 122
D6 Sorting Facility .............................................................................................................. 124
D7 Mechanical Recycling ................................................................................................... 127
D8 Mechanical Recycling followed by the supercleaning process and pelletizing ........... 128
D9 Landfill in UK ................................................................................................................ 129
D10 Manual Dishwashing .................................................................................................. 130
D11 Automatic Dishwashing ............................................................................................. 131
Annex E: Environmental Results ............................................................................................ 132
E1 Characterized Results ................................................................................................... 132
E2 Normalized Results ....................................................................................................... 138
E3 Main process and substance contributors ................................................................... 143
E3.1 Main substance-contributors ................................................................................ 143
E3.2 Main contribution and saving sources in each process ........................................ 144
E4 Stratospheric ozone depletion graph ........................................................................... 146
Annex F: Economic Results .................................................................................................... 147
F1 Scenario 1 ..................................................................................................................... 147
F2 Scenario 2 ..................................................................................................................... 147
F3 Scenario 3 ..................................................................................................................... 147
F4 Scenario 4 ..................................................................................................................... 148
F5 Total .............................................................................................................................. 148
Annex G: Sensitivity analysis ................................................................................................. 149
G1 Sensitivity 1 .................................................................................................................. 149
xvii
G1.1 Adjusted modeling data ........................................................................................ 149
G1.2 Composition comparisons .................................................................................... 149
G2 Sensitivity 2 .................................................................................................................. 151
xviii
1
1. Introduction and objectives
The increased consumption of plastics in products and packaging has led to an
increasing presence of plastics in the municipal waste streams (Plastic ZERO). The
growth of the global population combined with the increasing need for food and the
quick pace of life have led to an increasing production of take-away food which is
mostly sold in plastic packaging as it keeps the food fresh and protected. This type of
packaging ends up relatively soon in the waste bin due to its single use design,
concept that enhances the production of plastic waste. In Copenhagen’s region, 12%
of the incinerated residual waste is plastic (Plastic ZERO).
Until now, a number of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies have taken place in
order to investigate the environmental impacts sourcing of different plastic waste
disposal options and technologies. A deep emphasis has been given on the waste
management options of Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles due to the easy
separation of the fraction and the variety of applied recycling methods which can
convert the waste PET to a source of raw material for many different applications,
including applications for direct food contact. The studies focusing on the reuse of
food packaging, in many cases compare different packaging materials for the same
product. The economic dimension is added in many LCA waste management studies
in order to give a more representative perspective.
According to the waste hierarchy and the results of the majority of the LCA studies of
the waste management field, reuse is the most environmental friendly approach,
followed by the recycling. Incineration with energy recovery is also competitive in
many cases. Landfilling is the option which is the least favorable as it is considered a
complete waste of sources. The fundamental difference between the alternatives of
incineration and recycling is that the incineration of the waste leads to a loss of
materials while the recycling keeps them in the cycle. In the same time, recycling
contributes to the savings of energy and raw materials the production of which is
linked to the emissions of greenhouse gases. The production of virgin plastic comes
from oil and accounts for almost 8% of the worldly oil production ( EUROPEAN
COMMISSION, 2013).
The present study is an integrated environmental and economic assessment of
restaurants’ take-away packaging waste. The main aim of the project is to assess and
compare the environmental and economic impacts coming from the life cycle of PET
plastic take-away food packaging from restaurants, focusing on the alternative
disposal options. The study includes four different scenarios. The first three scenarios
refer to an one-use packaging while the forth scenario refers to a reusable packaging.
The waste treatment options which are involved are the incineration with energy
recovery and two different types of recycling. Life Cycle Costing (LCC) of the
scenarios enhances the decision supporting nature of the study. A further aim of the
2
study is the gathering of representative data concerning the currently used
technologies and the recycled material’s applications, coming directly from the side.
3
2. Background
The present chapter illustrates the waste management policies and technologies
applied to the plastic packaging, focusing on the food plastic packaging and on
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic. Additionally, it introduces the terms of Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC).
2.1. Plastic Packaging
The sector of plastic packaging represents 39% of the European plastics market
(PlasticsEurope(a), 2012) and accounts for the largest European and global share of
plastic production (Figure 1) (bio Intelligence Servise, 2011). The plastic packaging’s
growth rate is the highest among all the packaging materials for the period 2005-2010
(Eurostat, 2013) The resistance, the flexibility, the low cost and the lightness of the
plastics are some of the characteristics that make the plastic packaging useful, popular
and practical ( EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2013) as it contributes to a safer use,
transport and storage and keeps the product fresh and protected (PlasticsEurope(b),
2012).
There are many different types of rigid1plastic packaging in the market intended for
different applications. The type of polymer used is chosen according to its properties
and features (i.e. resistance, transparency, thermal stability etc.) in accordance with
the products’ characteristics, use and storage conditions (Delgado et al., 2007).
Polymers can be used in packaging combined with other polymers or materials and
they can also be coloured, labored and decorated in many ways (Delgado et al., 2007;
Kirwan & Strawbridge, 2011). Glass clear, transparent, coloured, opaque, with glossy
or matte surface are some of the variations applied in the design of plastic packaging
(Kirwan & Strawbridge, 2011).
All types of plastic packaging in Europe (EU) and in United States (US) are identified
by a code and symbol concerning their plastic type, in order to facilitate the recycling
(Christensen and Fruergaard, 2011). In EU, the marking of the plastic products (both
packaging and no packaging) is recommended but volunteering (Christensen and
Fruergaard, 2011). Types of plastic used for packaging together with their various
uses, code and abbreviation are presented in Table 1.
1 Rigid plastic packaging refers to any plastic packaging application such as bottles, closures, cups,
pots
4
Figure 1: European plastic demand by segment and resin type, 2011, source: PlasticsEurope(a), 2012
Table 1: Type, use and code of plastics, Source: Christensen and Fruergaard, 2011; bio Intelligence Servise, 2011
Plastic type Abbreviation Use Code
Polyethylene
terephthalate
PET Bottles for carbonated soft
drinks, textile fibers, film food
packaging, trays, medical
products
1
High density
polyethylene
HDPE Containers, toys, house wares,
industrial wrappings, gas pipes
2
Polyvinyl-chloride PVC Bottles, containers of medical
products window frames, pipes,
flooring, wallpaper, toys, cable
insulation, credit cards,
3
Low density
polyethylene
LDPE Pallets, agricultural films, bags,
toys, coatings, containers, pipes,
wrappings, films
4
Polypropylene PP Film, battery cases, containers,
crates, vegetable trays, electrical
components
5
Polystyrene PS Cups, plates,thermal insulation,
tape cassettes, electrical
appliances, toys
6
Expanded
polystyrene
EPS Packaging of foodstuffs,
medical supplies, foam
insulation, building material,
cycle helmet, electrical
consumer goods
7
Polyamide PA Films for packaging of food
waste, fibers, high-temperature
engineering applications, textile
7
5
Polyolefins (LDPE, HDPE, PP) and PET are the polymers which are most commonly
used in plastic packaging in EU/15, Norway and Switzerland (bio Intelligence
Servise, 2011). LDPE which is the dominant polymer used in plastic packaging, is
used mainly in plastic bags and shrink/ stretch wrap while HDPE is used for bags and
sacks when high rigidity is needed for commercial or industrial applications (Delgado
et al., 2007). PP is the most representative plastic material for rigid type food
packaging (e.g. rigid containers, pots, tubes) if excluding the beverage bottle case
where PET is the leading type of plastic (Delgado et al., 2007). PP trays correspond to
28% of the total production of the trays used for frozen/ready food as its high melting
point permits the microwave use (Delgado et al., 2007). HDPE and mainly PET are
basically used in bottles (bio Intelligence Servise, 2011) although PET is also applied
in food trays, frozen meals and salads (Delgado et al., 2007). PS is applied in
protective packaging with EPS used for the protection of the food in the packaging
(Delgado et al., 2007; bio Intelligence Servise, 2011). Crystal polystyrene is
commonly used as a barrier layer between the plastic and the packaged food (Delgado
et al., 2007). PVC is widely used for medical and non-food applications (Delgado et
al., 2007). The largest portion of plastic packaging ends up in household while the rest
is used in the industry for distribution reasons (e.g. crates, pallets, wrapping)
(ARGUS, et al., 2001). In Table 2 is given a detailed overview of the type of plastics
used in main household packaging.
Bioplastics are the new types of plastics which entered to the market in 2005, in
specific applications including packaging and waste collection bags (bio Intelligence
Servise, 2011; Christensen and Fruergaard, 2011). Renewable biomass (e.g. corn
starch and cane sugar) is the base for the bioplastics’ production, and that aims to the
reduction of fossil fuels consumed in the production phase (Christensen and
Fruergaard, 2011). Bioblastics are not completely CO2 neutral thought, as fossil fuels
are still used for the cultivation and reprocessing of the biomass. Polylactic acid
plastic (PLA), the most commercially applicable bioplastic until now, is used in the
production of packaging, bags and bottles replacing PE or PET plastic (bio
Intelligence Servise, 2011). Not all bioplastics thought, can be currently used in food
packaging, since they do not meet the resistance requirements (bio Intelligence
Servise, 2011). In Europe, bioplastics represent 0.1-0.2% of the total European plastic
consumption (bio Intelligence Servise, 2011).
The present report focuses on PET since it is one of the most popularly used polymers
in the plastic packaging industry and since it is also commonly applied in packaging
of meals and in trays, which is the report’s examined application.
6
Table 2: Main household packaging applications, source: bio Intelligence Servise, 2011
Applications Most common polymers
used
Bottles
Dairy products HDPE
Juices, sauces HDPE, barrier PET, PP
Water, soft drinks PET, barrier PET
Beer and alcoholic beverages Barrier PET
Oil, vinegar PET, PVC
Non-food products (cleaning
products, toiletries, lubricants,
etc.)
HDPE, PET,PVC
Medical products PET
Closures Caps and closures of bottles, jars,
pots, cartons etc.
PP, LDPE, HDPE, PVC
Bags and sacks
Carrier bags LDPE, HDPE
Garbage bags HDPE, LDPE, LLDPE
Other bags and sacks LDPE, LLDPE, HDPE, PP,
woven PP
Films
Pouches (
(sauces, dried soups, cooked
meals)
PP, PET
Overwrapping (food trays and
cartons)
OPP, bi-OPS
Wrapping, packets, sachets, etc. PP, OPP
Wrapping (meat, cheese) PVDC
Collection shrinks film (grouping
package for beverages, cartons,
etc.)
LLDPE, LDPE
Cling stretch rap film (food) LLDPE, LDPE, PVC, PVDC
Lidding (heat sealing) PET, OPA, OPP
Lidding (MAP and CAP foods) Barrier PET2, barrier layered
PET/PE and OPP/PE
Lidding (dairy) PET
Trays
Microwaveable ready meals,
puddings
PP,C-PET
Ovenable ready meals C-PET
Salads, desserts A-PET, PVC
Vegetables PP, EPS
Fish PP, PVC, A-PET, EPS
Confectionery PVC, PS
Dairy products PP,PS
Meat, poultry A-PET, PVC, EPS
Soup PP, A-PET
Others
Blisters PET, PVC
Pots, cups and tubs PP, PS
Service packaging (vending cups,
etc.)
PS
Protective packaging (“clam”
containers, fish crates, loose
filling, etc.)
EPS
2 Barrier materials applied as mono or multi-layers, limit the gas exchange and prolong the life of the
product (Delgado et al., 2007)
7
2.2. Plastic food packaging
Food packaging sector accounts for more than the half of the total plastic packaging
production (Delgado et al., 2007). The main properties that make plastics so popular
in food packaging are the food protection from spoilage, the lack of interaction with
the food, the lightweight, the resistant in breakage, the low cost and the availability in
a wide range of shapes and designs which contributes to an attractive and convenient
product (Kirwan & Strawbridge, 2011). The main volume of packaging met in
household sector, comes from food packaging as can be observed from Table 2.
Food packaging can be composed from more than one polymer or from different
materials (bio Intelligence Servise, 2011). Representative example is the PET bottles
case that despite the fact that their main component is PET plastic, their caps can be
made of PE and the labels can be made of PS, PVC, PP or even paper (bio
Intelligence Servise, 2011).
2.2.1. PET in food packaging
PET has become the most favorable packaging material for beverages due to its
unbreakability, lightweight compared to the glass bottles and its easy processes ability
(PlasticsEurope, 2008; Welle, 2011). PET bottles are used for soft drinks, energy
drinks, ice teas, mineral water, juices even for beer and wine (Welle, 2011). Soft
drinks and juices representing the 42% of the total use of PET in packaging (Delgado
et al., 2007; Welle, 2011). In addition, a remarkable application of PET concerns the
packaging of chilled/frozen food, salads, food trays for vegetables, snack foods,
sweets and long life confectionery (Delgado et al., 2007; PlasticsEurope, 2008).
Especially the applications in the packaging of pre-cooked food show a large rise
which is representative of the evolution in the European food consumption habits
(Welle, 2011).
Used PET is an attractive material for recycling which unlike other polymers can be
recycled back to food contact applications (bio Intelligence Servise, 2011). It is
important to be mentioned thought, that the product’s designing phase plays a key role
for its sustainability, since the recycling depends up to a large extent, on the
composition of the used materials ( EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2013).
2.2.2. Legislation for food contact applications
Council Regulation (EC) 1935/2004 of 27 October 2004 includes all the materials and
articles, including plastics, which intend to come into contact with food and poses the
requirements on which the materials must comply with (European Commission (a)).
The requirements include the ‘’good manufacturing practice’’ established by the
Commission Regulation (EC) 2023/2006 of 22 December 2006 for all the stages of
production. By this regulation the manufacturers are obliged to adopt a quality
assurance and a quality control system. In the Commission Regulation (EU) 10/2011
of 14 January 2011, specific requirements concerning the manufacture and marketing
8
of plastic materials for food contact use, are additionally established to the ones of
Council Regulation (EC) 1935/2004 of 27 October 2004. In addition, migration limits
for the materials and articles in question consisting in the plastic materials coming in
to food contact, are established due to the toxic substances that can be transferred
from the plastic articles to the food (Europa, 2012).
According to the Commission Regulation (EC) 282/2008 of 27 March 2008 on
recycled plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food, the
plastic input in the recycling process must have been manufactured in EU or US and
comply with the relevant regulations for plastic food contact materials (EFSA, 2011)
even if they are used for non-food applications such as shampoos and household
cleaning products (Franz et al., 2004). In the opposite case, it has to be proved that the
input applies to the Commission Regulation (EC) 282/2008 of 27 March 2008
(EFSA, 2011). All plastic packaging resins sold in EU and US which apply
respectively to Commission Directive (EC) 2002/72 of 6 August 2002 and to 21 CFR3
177.1630 and 21 CFR 177.1315 are food contact graded (EFSA, 2011).
2.3 Management of plastic packaging waste
2.3.1. Legislation
Europe
Despite the high environmental impacts caused by the disposal of plastic waste, there
is no actual legislation about the waste treatment of plastic in Europe (EUROPEAN
COMMISSION, 2013). There are only EU directives framing the policy that country-
members have to adopt (Biener et al., 2013).
The first EU Directive on the management of packaging waste is the Council
Directive (EEC) 85/339 of 27 June 1985, which covers the waste packaging of liquid
beverage containers intended for human consumption (European Commission , 2010).
Due to the vague of the directive, only some of the EU members adopted measures on
packaging waste management (European Commission, 2010).
Following, the Council Directive (EC) 94/62 of 20 December 1994 on packaging
waste, promotes the prevention of packaging and packaging waste, contains
provisions on the recycling, recovery and reuse of packaging waste and sets recycling
and recovery targets for plastic packaging. The revision of the directive in 2004
included the increase of recycling targets (European Commission, 2010). The
Council Directive (EC) 2008/98 of 19 November 2008 on waste, sets recycling and
recovery targets for certain materials originated from households, including plastic,
which should be reached by 2020, by waste management and waste prevention plans,
adopted separately by every EU-member country (European Commission, 2012). The
Directive also introduces the concept of ‘’extended producer’s responsibility’’ in the
waste management, which aims to encourage the plastic product producers in
3 CFR is the acronymic of Code of Federal Regulations which refers to regulations of United States
(U.S.)
9
designing more sustainable products with less environmental impacts (Biener et al.,
2013). Finally, the directive emphasizes the priority order that should be applied in
the waste management, starting from the prevention of the waste, followed by the
reuse, recycling, recovery and ending in the disposal. Waste management hierarchy is
depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Waste management hierarchy, source: European Commission, 2012
In most of the EU countries, waste taxes have been introduced as a measure aiming in
the reduction of the waste (Merrild & Christensen, 2011). Additionally, the waste tax
imposed to different disposal ways can be an indirect way to lead the waste to the
most desirable disposal option (Merrild & Christensen, 2011).
Denmark
Danish parliament issued its own legislation concerning the waste management of
packaging and established a deposit and return system (Biener et al., 2013) explained
in Section 2.3.3. Supplementary to that, the Council Directive (EC) 94/62 of 20
December 1994 was also implemented in order to minimize the environmental
impacts caused by waste packaging production (Biener et al., 2013).
Denmark is one of the countries which imposed taxes in the different waste
management options. Landfilling is the option with the highest taxes, followed by the
taxes imposed on incineration process (Merrild & Christensen, 2011). Recycling and
reuse are excluded from the taxes (Merrild & Christensen, 2011).
The ‘’extended producer responsibility’’ introduced in Council Directive (EC)
2008/98 of 19 November 2008 thought, is not yet included in the Danish waste
management system (Biener et al., 2013).
2.3.2. Management in Europe
The annual packaging production is commonly equalized with the packaging waste
generation due to the limited life of the packaging products (Delgado et al., 2007). As
already mentioned, packaging sector represents the largest plastic consumer in most
European countries (bio Intelligence Servise, 2011). The average EU-27 annual
production of plastic packaging waste in 2007, reached the 30.6 kg/capita (bio
10
Intelligence Servise, 2011). Figure 3 depicts the plastic packaging waste production
by EU member generated in 2007. The variation of the plastic waste generation
between the countries seems big, but it is the lowest of all the materials (Eurostat,
2013).
Recycling, landfilling and incineration combined or not with energy recovery are
possible treatment options for plastic waste (bio Intelligence Servise, 2011). In 2008,
the European generation of plastic packaging waste reached the 15.6 Mt from which
41.8 % was disposed to landfills (6.5 Mt) and the rest 58.2% (9.1 Mt) was recovered
by recycling or energy recovery (bio Intelligence Servise, 2011). More precisely, 4.4
Mt of the recovered fraction of 9.1 Mt comes from mechanical recycling, 0.074 Mt
comes from feedstock recycling and 4.6 Mt comes from energy recovery. The above
mentioned amounts are illustrated in Figure 4 in order to give a clearer overview.
Table 3, presents the plastic packaging waste treatment by member state for 2007
while Figure 25 in Annex A1 visualizes the respective rates. The amounts of the table
refer to both commercial and household plastic packaging waste.
Denmark is the European country with the highest recovery rate4 (98%) originating
mainly from its high incineration rate (76%). Germany follows Denmark with an
almost equally high recovery rate of 95%. In Germany, 1Mt of plastic packaging
waste (the largest amount in Europe) is being mechanically recycled and 0.054Mt of
plastic packaging waste is being chemically recycled (bio Intelligence Servise, 2011).
Germany is one of the two countries applying chemical recycling for plastic
packaging waste (bio Intelligence Servise, 2011).
Figure 3: Plastic packaging waste generation by EU-27, 2007 (Mt), source: bio Intelligence Servise, 2011
4 Recovery here refers to recycling and energy recovery
11
Figure 4: Treatment of total plastic packaging waste generated in EU-27, Norway and Switzerland in 2008 (Mt), source: bio Intelligence Servise, 2011
Bulgaria, Cyprus and Greece are countries with low recovery rates as they do not
possess infrastructures for incineration or energy recovery. Bulgaria’s recycling rate
for example is slightly lower than Denmark’s but its recovery rate is much lower since
the majority of the plastic packaging waste is disposed in landfills, contrary to
Denmark where the remaining fraction is send for incineration with energy recovery
(bio Intelligence Servise, 2011)
Legislation and mainly Council Directive (EC) 94/62 of 20 December 1994 has
contribute to a remarkable increase in recycling of the packaging (bio Intelligence
Servise, 2011). Thus, the European recycling rate is annually increasing by an average
percentage of 2% (PlasticsEurope(b), 2012).
PET bottles and PE containers are one of the dominant driving forces in the waste
plastic recycling industry (bio Intelligence Servise, 2011). Recycling amounts of
plastic packaging for the European countries in total are higher than incineration’s or
energy recovery’s (see Table 3). Plastic packaging is widely mechanically recycled
with recycling rates varying depending on the type of plastic (bio Intelligence Servise,
2011). Distribution packaging such as crates, drums, pallets, wrapping, films, EPS
packaging, are met in commercial and industrial sectors while PET and HDPE bottles
are mainly recovered from the household flow (Delgado et al., 2007). Plastic
packaging existing in the household waste flow is estimated to be 65-75% by weight
of total plastic packaging while the remaining percentage is met in the industrial and
commercial fraction (Delgado et al., 2007). More than 90% of crates and boxes and
40% of bottles and industrial films are recycled in the EU (bio Intelligence Servise,
2011). The recycling of plastic is more difficult and costly, compared to the recycling
of other packaging materials (Eurostat, 2013).
12
Table 3: Plastic packaging waste treatment by member state, 2007 (Mt), source: bio Intelligence Servise, 2011
Mechanical
recycling
Other forms
of recycling
Energy
recovery
Incineration
with energy
recovery
Germany 1.075 0.054 0.516 0.874
Italy 0.642 - 0.687
UK 0.477 0.024 0.167
France 0.446 - 0.683
Spain 0.392 0.010 0.238
Netherlands 0.157 0.079 0.318
Poland 0.144 0.0005 0.084 0.011
Belgium 0.119 0.003 0.144
Czech
Republic
0.099 0.001 0.025
Austria 0.080 0.059 0.094
Sweden 0.080 - 0.070
Portugal 0.058 - 0.028
Romania 0.057 0.022 -
Ireland 0.053 - -
Norway 0.042 0.031 0.046
Denmark 0.042 - 0.146
Greece 0.041 - -
Hungary 0.037 0.023 0.036
Slovakia 0.031 0.0001 0.0001
Bulgaria 0.020 <0.00001 -
Lithuania 0.018 - -
Finland 0.018 0.024 -
Estonia 0.014 0.00004 -
Luxemburg 0.010 0.001 0.012
Latvia 0.009 - -
Cyprus 0.002 - -
Total 4.162 0.055 0.875 3.580
The recycling rate of 22.5% which represents the 2008-target has been met by all
country-members that agreed to reach the target by now. The plastic recycling rate of
each country compared to the 2008-target can be seen in Annex A1.
It has to be mentioned that a remarkable amount of plastic packaging waste is
exported from European countries, mainly to Asian Countries, due to economic and
technological reasons (bio Intelligence Servise, 2011). China and Hong Kong import
most of the European waste plastic, which reached the amount of 1.85 Mt in 2006
(bio Intelligence Servise, 2011). Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Germany are the
main ‘’internal-EU traders’’ of plastic waste (bio Intelligence Servise, 2011). In 2004,
0.85 Mt of plastic waste was traded between the European countries (bio Intelligence
Servise, 2011).
13
2.3.3. Management in Denmark
The Danish waste management system is based on the curbside and drop-off
collection schemes (Biener et al., 2013). Curbside collection refers to the disposal of
the waste and recyclables by the citizens into a container, bag or bins outside their
homes. Drop off collection refers to the disposal of waste and recyclables by the
citizens to a recycling or collection center (Biener et al., 2013). The first type of
collection seems to be more effective for recyclables between those two options due
to its convenience from the citizen’s perspective (Biener et al., 2013). The
responsibility for the collection scheme’s decision is taken by the local authorities and
that is the reason why waste management strategy can vary among the Danish
municipalities (Biener et al., 2013).
Deposit-and-return system, is a type of drop-off collection, which was introduced to
the Danish waste system for the management of beverage packaging waste as already
mentioned in Chapter 2.3.1. This system consists of reverse vending machines which
accept used beverage containers and return a fee to the user (Biener et al., 2013).
Almost 3000 reverse vending machines have been installed in 2700 stores all over
Denmark where the consumer returns the used bottle and gets back a deposit (Franz et
al., 2004; Biener et al., 2013). Dansk Returnsystem A/S, founded in 2000, is a private
non-profit organization, which operates the Danish deposit and return system,
supported by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency (Danskretursystem (a))
Dansk Retursystem A/S deposits and refunds refillable bottles (refillables) and one
way packaging (Danskretursystem (b)). The refillables are plastic or glass bottles
washed and refilled by the producer while one-use packaging is single-use products
(Danskretursystem (b)) ;bottles and cans of beer, carbonated soft drinks, energy
drinks, mineral water, iced tea, ready-to-drink beverage and cider products
(Danskretursystem (b) ; Danskretursystem (c)). The collected one way packaging is
sorted by material type (glass, plastic, aluminum, steel) and send for recycling
(Danskretursystem (c)). In 2011, the return percentage 5for one-use packaging was
89% and for refillable packaging 103% (Danskretursystem (d)). In 2010, Denmark’s
reverse vending machines accepted 800 million packaging from which 326 million
were plastic bottles (Biener et al., 2013).
Drink products’ importers and producers, wishing to be covered by the system, have
to register their products in the Dansk Returnsystem A/S and label them according to
the system’s guidelines (Danskretursystem (e)). The one-use packaging registered in
the system, are categorized in three types (A,B,C) with different deposit value
(Danskretursystem (b)). Refundable deposits are presented in Table 4.
5 The return percentage is calculated from the number of returned refundable packaging in proportion
to the total number of sold packaging (Danskretursystem (c))
14
Table 4: Refundable deposits, Source: Danskretursystem (b)
Type of packaging Deposit (DKK)
Refillable bottles
Glass bottles (≤0.5 l) 1.00
Glass bottles (>0.5l) 3.00
Plastic bottles (<1 l) 1.5
Plastic bottles (≥1l) 3.00
One-use packaging
Type A
All cans and bottles under 1 l, except plastic bottles
1.00
Type B
Plastic bottles under 1 l
1.50
Type C
Cans, glass and plastic bottles of 1 l and over
3.00
As packaging is the dominant type of waste in Denmark, packaging taxes are imposed
on a number of products (Warberg Larsen and Skovgaard, 2012). A volume-based
tax on beverages was firstly introduced in 1978, aiming to enhance the use of
refillable packaging (Warberg Larsen and Skovgaard, 2012). In 1999, a weight-based
tax was imposed on a number of products such as detergents, soaps, perfumes,
margarine, non-carbonated soft drinks, edible oils and vinegar (Warberg Larsen and
Skovgaard, 2012). The purpose of this tax is the reduction of the waste through the
reduced consumption of packaging (Warberg Larsen and Skovgaard, 2012). The
weight-based tax was also applied on PVC film foodstuff packaging in order to be
promoted the use of more environmental friendly packaging foils (Warberg Larsen
and Skovgaard, 2012).
2.3.4. Management in Copenhagen
A central point in Copenhagen’s waste management system is the source separation of
the recyclable waste fractions included in the municipal waste, which are collected by
a combination of a curbside and bring-back system (Warberg Larsen and Skovgaard,
2012). Until now though, little was the attention given to the plastic fraction with the
exception of PVC (Warberg Larsen and Skovgaard, 2012). PVC and insolation
materials are taken for landfilling while the residual waste fraction is taken for
incineration (Warberg Larsen and Skovgaard, 2012).
Concerning the packaging waste, no separation takes place, with only exception the
deposit-and-return system as explained in Chapter 2.3.3 (Warberg Larsen and
Skovgaard, 2012). Bottle’s recovery reached a percentage of more than 95%
(Warberg Larsen and Skovgaard, 2012) due to the application of this system. The
advantage of this collection system is that PET does not get contaminated by other
materials during the collecting process (Franz et al., 2004).
15
Until late 2012, other plastic beverage containers, glass and metal cans have been
collected together in the bring banks6, when a new curbside collection scheme started
being implemented (Warberg Larsen and Skovgaard, 2012). The new source-
separation scheme, started in the autumn of 2012, applies to multi-story buildings and
collects the rigid plastic packaging (Warberg Larsen and Skovgaard, 2012). The
disadvantage of this type of collection is the almost impossible separation between the
plastic packaging for food and non-food applications (Franz et al., 2004). The gradual
implementation of the new system is expected to be fully completed in 2016
(Warberg Larsen and Skovgaard, 2012). Supplementary with the new system’s
establishment, the citizens’ introduction to the system is planned to takes place in
2012-2014, by a relevant information campaign (Warberg Larsen and Skovgaard,
2012).
Bulky, non-food plastic packaging consisting of rigid or flexible recyclable plastic or
PVC is separately collected in the four recycling stations for bulky waste in
Copenhagen (Warberg Larsen and Skovgaard, 2012).
Beverage containers and rigid PVC are collected in order to be recycled (Warberg
Larsen and Skovgaard, 2012). According to survey’s estimations, the potential
recyclable rigid plastic packaging in Copenhagen’s annual household waste is 6600
tons (Warberg Larsen and Skovgaard, 2012).
Table 5, presents the application and the treatment methods of plastic packaging
waste in Copenhagen as reported in 2009 (Warberg Larsen and Skovgaard, 2012).
The landfilled plastic packaging, it is assumed to be PVC (Warberg Larsen and
Skovgaard, 2012).
Table 5: Application and plastic packaging waste in Copenhagen, 2009 , source: Warberg Larsen and Skovgaard, 2012
Application Generated
(tones)
Treatment (tones) Incineration
and landfill
(tones)
% of the
waste
which is
incinerated
and
landfilled
Mechanic
al
recycling
Incineration Landfill
Household
packaging
13,173 1,223 11,761 188 11,949 90.7
Industrial
packaging
10,854 6,642 4,212 0 4,212 38.8
2.3.5. Recycling of PET
During the last decade, EU supported two major projects concerning the recyclability
and re-usability of recycled plastic for new food packaging applications (Welle,
2005). The first project (AIR2-CT93- 1014) dealt with reuse and recycling of waste
plastic packaging materials and concluded that PET is the most promising plastic for
6 Recycling site facilities
16
reuse in food contact applications (NARCIS). The second project FAIR CT98- 4318
‘’Recyclability’’, based on the results of the first project, focused on PET and its
reprocessing into new food contact applications (Welle, 2005).
The input of a PET recycling process can be classified into four categories based on
its quality, according to (Franz et al., 2004). The four classes are the following:
Class 1: Includes scrap PET materials coming from the manufacturing or
converting industry, where their past life is known and controlled. This
material defined as ‘’postindustrial recycle PET’’ (PIRP) and ‘’pre-consumer
industrial scrap’’ can be used in applications with direct food contact, with the
fundamental precondition that the ’good manufacturing practice’’ has been
followed as mentioned in Chapter 2.3.1.
Class 2: Includes post-consumer PET (PCR PET) which was used for food
packaging purposes. This type of material cannot be used directly for food
contact applications since the history of its use phase is not known. This
stream is usually collected via a deposit system or material collection.
Class 3: Includes non-pure PCR PET, possibly mixed with other plastics and
PCR PET coming also from non-food packaging applications. This fraction is
usually collected by a mix plastic collection system.
Class 4: Includes the materials of classes 1,2,3 after depolymerisation
(conversion of polymers to monomers by a chemical process) which ends up
to the regeneration of a new polymer.
Feedstock7 coming from Class 1 and 4 can be directly used to direct food contact
applications without any further process (Franz et al., 2004). Contrary, materials
coming from class 2 and 3 can only be directly used for not direct food contact
purposes while they must be further processed in order to be used for applications
with direct contact (Franz et al., 2004).
According to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the PET used for non-food
contact containers such as shampoos and detergents must not exceed the percentage of
5% of the recycling feedstock (EFSA, 2011) due to the potential risks which are
mentioned in Chapter 2.2.2..
The four processes used to recycle plastic packaging material are the primary, the
mechanical, the chemical recycling and the energy recovery which are described as
follows.
1.Primary recycling: Refers to a commonly used approach in industry, where
feedstock of class 1 is used for the production of new packaging (FDA, 2006).
2.Physical reprocessing: Secondary/mechanical/conventional recycling: It
includes a combination of steps like sorting, grinding, shredding, melting, granulating,
7 Feedstock or feed stream refers to PCR PET used as recycling’s input (Franz et al., 2004)
17
washing and drying without changing the chemical structure of the plastic (Franz et
al., 2004, (Christensen and Fruergaard, 2011). Dirt and foodstuffs are removed in the
washing and gridding steps (Franz et al., 2004). The smaller the particles/flakes are,
the more effective the washing will be (FDA, 2006). Common additives in the
washing phase are caustic soda and detergents which contribute to the surface
cleaning of the PCR-PET (Welle, 2011). Usually separation step of non-PET
materials like polyolefins is combined with the washing step, by taking advantage of
the different densities (Welle, 2011). An extra cleaning effect can be applied by re-
melting the already washed flakes (Welle, 2011). The purity of the output is affected
by the type of washing (hot or cold water), washing additives, and duration of
washing (Welle, 2011).
PET from class 2 and 3 is the input of this type of recycling which, in the end of the
process, become flakes or pellets after an additional extrusion step (Franz et al.,
2004). The produced PET flakes can be used for: 1) non-food packaging applications,
2) the core layer of multilayer containers or 3) as feedstock for a super clean recycling
process in order to be suitable for food-contact applications (Franz et al., 2004).
Multilayer containers: PET flakes coming from the conventional recycling can be
used in packaging applications as a core layer between of two virgin layers (Delgado
et al., 2007). In the food packaging industry thought, this is not always the case, as the
PCR-PET can contaminate the virgin layer during the film production (Welle, 2011);
personal contact with the industry). Thus, in those cases, it must be proved that the
barrier layer is efficient under the worst case conditions and safe for food contact
applications (see legislation).
Super clean process: Is an extra decontamination step, applied to the output flakes of
the secondary recycling process, in order to produce recycled PET plastic, with
contamination level similar to the one of virgin PET pellets, suitable for direct food
contact applications (Franz et al., 2004). This special deep cleansing step usually
includes high temperature, vacuum or inert gas treatment and surface treatment with
non-hazardous chemicals (e.g. caustic soda) (Welle, 2011).
The solid state of polycondensation (SSP), usually used as decontamination step in
supercleaning processes based on pellets 8, is the first process that entered the market
and is also used as the last step in the processes of the virgin PET (Delgado et al.,
2007). The SSP process can take place either in a standalone system such as a solid
state batch or in continuous working units in the line production, where a continuous
treatment of PET takes place under appropriate temperature and vacuum for a
determined residence time (personal contact with the industry). When PET is
supercleaned through solid stating, a desired (IV) can be achieved according to the
PET’s future application -different applications require different IVs (personal contact
8 PET superclean recycling processes based on pellets uses as input the washed PET flakes which are re
extruded to pellets before the SSP step
18
with the industry). Different types of supercleaning already applied in the industry are
presented In Annex A2.
3.Chemical reprocessing: Tertiary/Feedstock recycling: It uses the feedstock of
class 1 to 3 as input and by the process of depolymerisation followed by purification
generates new polymers (Franz et al., 2004). The latters are used for the production of
new packaging (FDA, 2006). Hydrolysis or methanolysis are used for the
depolymerization of PCR-PET to its monomers9 while distillation or crysrallization
usually consist the purification step (Welle, 2011). The purificathion step removes
efficiently every post-consumer compound and the output of the process does not
need to be tested as it is considered safe for food contact applications (Welle, 2011).
The main advantage of the chemical process is its low quality requirements for the
input as it can successfully treat contaminated or heterogeneous plastic feedstock and
produce output of high quality (Ren, 2012). The amounts coming of this recycling
method are not significant in the market, despite the safeness of the process (Welle,
2011).
4.Quaternary recycling: Energy recovery: Refers to the use of the waste as a fuel in
order to generate energy (bio Intelligence Servise, 2011).This process is not
considered as recycling in EU (Ren, 2012).
As it is already mentioned, mechanical recycling is the dominant type of plastic waste
of recycling in Europe. The limited application of the chemical recycling is justified
due to technical and economic reasons (Ren, 2012).
The recycled PET flakes can be used for fibres, sheets, bottles, containers as end
market applications, with packaging gaining more and more place during the last
decade (in 2009, 49% of PCR-PET used in packaging sector the majority of which in
food applications) (Welle, 2011). Germany, UK, France and Italy are the European
countries with the highest recollection rate of PET bottles and are also the countries
with the main super clean facilities installed (Welle, 2011).
2.3.5.1. Risks and limitations in the recycling of plastic materials
The main issue in mechanical recycling process is the heterogeneity of plastic input
which needs to be controlled (Perugini et al., 2005). Food packaging consists
frequently of different types of materials or plastics with different properties and
characteristics as mentioned in Chapter 2.2.1. In order to produce high quality
recycled product, with strength and flexibility, the input material must be cleaned and
separated in types of plastic (Christensen and Fruergaard, 2011). In the opposite case,
the produced plastic is of low quality and needs to be proceeded to a feedstock
recycling process (Christensen and Fruergaard, 2011).
Even if the recycling input comes only from the food packaging sector, the mixing of
different packaging designed for special food types and conditions of use, may lead to
9 PET’s monomers are ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid or terephthalic acid methyl ester
19
an undesirable quality of plastic (FDA, 2006). An example of this case may be the
additives used in aqueous type of foods or for refrigerated use which may end up in
packaging for high-temperature use with fatty foods (FDA, 2006). This concept can
be limited by the collection of only a single characteristic container as for instance
PET soda bottles (FDA, 2006).
A limiting factor in using recycled plastics is the big amount of post-consumer plastic
which is required for the production of the recycled material in combination with the
price which has to be competitive compared to the price of the virgin plastic (bio
Intelligence Servise, 2011).
In addition, the fact that recycling cannot eliminate the colors from the reprocessed
plastics, denies their application in transparent or light colored end uses (bio
Intelligence Servise, 2011).
For the food packaging industry, the risks related to the use of recycled plastic comes
from the possible migration of contaminants of the recycled material into the
packaged food (EFSA, 2011). Thus, a ‘’challenge test’’ with a highly contaminated
input is required by the EFSA, in order to be proved that the decontamination during
the recycling process is efficient enough and no risk is posed to human health (see
Chapter 2.2.2.) (EFSA, 2011). For the PET plastic containers, the contaminants
considered by EFSA (2011) come from:
possible storage of chemicals
possible contact with non-food products such as cosmetics and cleaning
products that may lead to an absorption of chemicals
the use of non-authorized plastics as recycling input, the way of production
and quality of which may not apply to the European legislation concerning the
production of plastic for food contact purposes
chemicals coming from multilayer of other than PET materials which may
enter the recycling input due to insufficient separation
chemicals such as detergents which are used in the recycling process
‘’degradation products of the plastic’’ which can be produced as a result of the
high temperature which is applied in many steps in the recycling procedure
and which may convert the polymer chain into new compounds
components of the food which may be absorbed by the PET packaging and
contaminate the plastic which is to be recycled
2.4. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is used for the evaluation of potential environmental
impacts coming from the life cycle of a product system. Extraction of resources,
production, use and disposal are the stages of a product system’s entire life (from
cradle to grave) that can be accounted under the LCA approach. Its holistic point of
view contributes to the solution of one environmental problem while avoiding the
creation of others, concept that makes LCA a powerful decision supporting tool.
20
The ISO 14040 and 14044 illustrate the framework for LCAs while the International
Reference Life Cycle Data Systems (ILCD) provides further guidance. The present
study tries to be as close as possible to the above framework but it does not follow it
strictly.
LCA studies can be approached under two different perspectives: attributional or
consequential. The approach is fundamentally important to be defined in the
beginning of the study since the choice strongly affects the processes and the
modeling of the study. Attributional approach considers an independent of its
surroundings system opposite to consequential approach which takes under
consideration the exchanges between the system and its surroundings systems and
economy. The present study follows a consequential approach.
For the consequential modeling of foreground systems, generic10
or average 11
background datasets may be used, in case of specific data’s unavailability (European
Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability,
2010). The required data for the consequential modeling of the background system is
the marginal mixes unless the average mix represents better the superseded process
(European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and
Sustainability, 2010).
System expansion with substitution is the second option for avoiding allocation
according to the ISO hierarchy and is the applied method approach for solving
multifunctionality in consequential modeling. This method can be applied either by
adding functions in order to make the systems comparable or by subtracting the not
required functions which are substituted by the modeled processes (substitution by
system expansion).
In waste management LCAs, the primary focus is given to the end-of life of products,
opposite to the LCA of products where production and use phase gather the primary
attention (Hauschild & Barlaz, 2011). In many LCA studies of waste management the
starting point of the study is the moment when the product becomes waste and in that
way the production and use phase are excluded from the study (Bjorklund et al.,
2011). However, this is not always the case as in some comparative studies the
production or use phase of the product need to be included. Additionally, not all flows
reach the ‘’grave phase’’ as for example in cases of material and energy recovery
from waste (Bjorklund et al., 2011).
2.4.1. LCA phases
According to ISO 14040, the main phases consisting an LCA study are four: goal and
scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation of results.
10
Generic datasets refer to data partly developed based on patents, stoichiometric or other calculation
models, expert judgment etc. 11
Average data set refers to average data, technologies or processes
21
1. The goal and scope definition describes the study’s parameters including the
purpose and the intended use of the study.
2. The inventory analysis (LCI) introduces and quantifies the inputs and outputs
(materials, energy, emissions) of the product system’s life cycle. It also
includes the collection of data.
3. The impact assessment (LCIA) uses the results of the second phase in order
to provide potential environmental impacts and resource consumption for the
studied system. This phase can be divided in four stages, of which the first two
are mandatory according to the ISO 14040.
Classification: the grouping of LCI results into impact categories
based on the different caused environmental damages
Characterization: quantifying of the contribution caused in each
impact category and resource consumption
Normalization: characterized results expressed to a common unit
Weighting: using numerical factors to express the enhanced
importance of some impact categories
4. The interpretation phase discusses and evaluates the obtained LCIA results,
combined with conclusions and recommendations. Sensitivity and uncertainty
analysis can also be included for key points of the assessment.
2.4.2. EASETECH
The present study was modeled in EASETECH which is a waste management LCA
program, developed by the Residual Resources Research and LCA Research Group of
Technical University of Denmark. The name of the software is an acronym of
‘’Environmental Assessment System for Environmental Technologies’’ and is the
evolution model of the former model EASEWASTE.
EASETECH provides a database of waste generation and waste management
processes together with a number of different LCIA methods. It is also possible for
the user to create its own processes additionally to the processes and flows that can be
imported from the Ecoinvent database. The model quantifies loads and savings of
potential environmental impacts coming from waste management scenarios as well as
mass flows (Sankey diagram).
The software is expected to be a powerful tool although it is not yet fully developed.
The responsible research group is currently working for the optimization of the
program’s processes, bugs and malfunctions. Additionally, new functions are
supposed to be implemented to EASETECH. The preliminary stage of program’s
development was an extra difficulty for the implementation of the present study
basically due to frequent crashes, slow speed of reaction and lack of processes which
had to be inserted manually from EASEWASTE.
22
2.5. Life Cycle Costing (LCC)
Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is applied for the estimation of economic costs of products
and systems under a life cycle perspective and it is traditionally used by decision
makers (Hauschild & Barlaz, 2011). The LCC method is basically used for the
comparison of cost-effectiveness of different scenarios (Merrild & Christensen,
2011). This analysis does not consider environmental impacts but it is usually
combined with an LCA study preferably applied to the same system boundaries, in
order to supplement each other in the procedure of decision (Carlsoon Reich).
According to Merrild and Christensen (2011), the private costs 12
in waste
management systems, accounted for LCC, include four different types of costs which
are presented as follows:
1. The capital/fixed costs: Are the costs invested in land, buildings and equipment.
The costs related to the planning of the system are often included in the capital costs.
As the majority of this type of costs is invested during the first years of the system’s
life, the costs are annualized in order to convert them to a yearly cost.
2. The variable/running costs: Refer to the system’s operational and maintenance
costs. Wages, electricity, raw materials, vehicles, replacement of worn equipment are
representative costs of this category.
3. Revenues: Refer to the income coming from the sale of recovered from the waste
products. Examples of recovered products are energy, metals, plastics, paper, and
compost.
4. Taxes: This category includes both general taxes such as VAT (value added tax)
and specific waste taxes imposed on landfilling and incineration.
All the economic data originating from different years needs to be converted to the
present value by a discounting rate or inflation correction (Reich, 2005; Merrild &
Christensen, 2011). The costs of waste management systems can vary significantly
mainly due to factors related to the technological, service and wage level applied to
different collection, transportation and treatment options (Merrild & Christensen,
2011).
LCC does not follow any ISO standards and thus a number of definitions can be
found in literature. The present study adopts the definition of Financial LCC found in
Carlsson Reich (2005), where financial costs depict the present value of all monetary
costs (positive or negative) of the studied system. The calculations of the present LCC
were realized in an excel spread shit, where the costs are depicted with a negative
while the revenues with a positive value. The net revenue, coming from the addition
of the above mentioned values was calculated for all the facilities and processes of the
studied systems.
12
Monetary costs needed for the waste system’s management (Merrild & Christensen, 2011)
23
2.6. Literature review of LCA and LCC on plastic packaging
2.6.1. Food packaging
A number of LCA studies have been published comparing food plastic packaging
with other types of packaging or comparing and assessing different types of plastic.
Zabaniotou and Kassidi (2002) compared two egg packaging made from polystyrene
and recycled paper concluding that PS packaging has more impacts than the paper
one. Humbert et al. (2009) compared glass jars and plastic pots as two baby food
packaging alternatives and reached the conclusion that for the same transportation
distances the plastic pot system contributes less than the glass jar system mentioning
the importance of the transportation in the examined systems.
2.6.2. Single and reusable food packaging
Singh et al. (2006) compared reusable plastic containers with single use paper
corrugated trays used for the packaging of fruit and vegetables, focusing on North
American market, with the reusable containers appearing to have a better
environmental profile. Levi et al. (2011) also compared the packaging and distribution
system of re-usable plastic containers with one way paper corrugated boxes for fruit
and vegetables in Italy. Wrap (2010) presents the factors that need to be taken under
consideration when assessing the single use and reusable packaging systems’
performance.
2.6.3. Waste management of plastic and plastic food packaging
Numerous studies have also taken place trying to investigate which is the optimal
disposal method for plastic waste, by comparing different disposal scenarios of
landfilling, incineration, recycling or a combination of the above by using the LCA
tool. Claus Mølgaard (1995) compared the environmental impacts coming from the
disposal of plastic found in the municipal solid waste by investigating six different
disposal ways: two different recycling processes with plastic separation, recycling
without separation, pyrolysis, Danish incineration with heat recovery and landfill,
coming to the conclusion that recycling with plastic separation is the most
environmental friendly approach. Merrild et al. (2012) assessed the environmental
impacts coming from recycling and incineration of six household material fractions
including plastic. For plastic and cardboard fractions the results were more unclear
compared to the rest of the fractions (paper, glass, steel, aluminum) as it was shown
that incineration can be more environmental friendly than recycling, in some cases.
Those cases depended on the examined system boundaries, the incineration’s energy
recovery and the focused impact category.
Arena et al. (2003) assessed an Italian plastic packaging recycling system which
collected and mechanically recycled used PE and PET liquid containers, providing
data coming from the industry. Different alternatives of plastic disposal were also
included in the study which concludes that recycling is the most environmentally
24
preferable option, underling the advantages coming from the processed scraps’ energy
recovery. Perugini et al. (2005) studied the recycling of household plastic packaging
waste in Italy comparing it with landfilling, incineration and two other types of
feedstock recycling, pointing that recycling scenarios are environmentally preferable.
Santosh et al. (2009) realized a cradle to grave LCA comparing the environmental
profiles of polylatic acid (PLA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polystyrene
(PS) clamshell containers for strawberries emphasizing the different end of life
scenarios (landfill, incineration, a combination of the above). PET showed the largest
burden contributions to the environment mainly due to the higher weight of the
container. Kruger et al. (2009) compared clamshells made of polylactide (Ingeo) with
clamshells made of virgin and recycled PET. Lazarevic et al. (2010) summarized that
most of the investigated LCAs on plastic waste management seem to follow the waste
hierarchy and confirm mechanical recycling as the preferable environmental option
compared to feedstock recycling and incineration, with the assumption that the plastic
is clean with limited contamination and the substitution rate of recycled plastic with
virgin is close to 1:1. The study also underlines some sensitive key points of plastic
waste management.
2.6.3.1. PET bottles
During the last years, PET was in the focus of many LCA studies due to the separate
collection of PET bottles and its recycling applications. Some of the most recent ones
are briefly presented below. Chilton et al. (2010) realized an LCA in order to compare
the closed-loop recycling of PET bottles with the incineration in an energy recovery
plant. Under an overall perspective, the recycling option had a better environmental
performance. Shen et al. (2010) investigated the open loop of PET bottles-to-fibre
recycling for four different recycling cases (mechanical, semi-mechanical, back to
oligomer and back to monomer recycling) applying different allocation approaches. It
was concluded that mechanical recycling performed better than the chemical
recycling, noting thought that chemically recycled fibres have a wider range of
applications. Shen et al. (2011) get further the previous research by assessing the
effects caused on the cradle to grave system of recycling PET bottles back to bottles
and fibres, by the number of recycling trips, the production of PET from bio-based
feedstock and the shares of recycled PET used for fibres and bottles.
2.6.3.2. Combined LCA and LCC
Carlsson Reich (2005) examined Uppsala’s waste management system under an
environmental and economic point of view. The economic approach was realized
under a financial and environmental LCC. The case study revealed that landfilling is
the least preferred option from an economic perspective as the energy included in the
waste is wasted to the greater extent. In 2005, Schmidt et al. applied an experiment in
the city of Copenhagen in order to define, under an economic and environmental point
of view, the city’s waste scheme concerning plastic and metal single use beverage
containers. This study proved that combined LCA and LCC is a useful tool for waste
25
systems’ evaluation. Emery et al. (2006) applied an LCA and LCC approach to a
number of waste management scenario in a typical location in Wales. The LCA
resulted in incineration being as the preferred option compared to landfilling and
recycling/composting method. Oppositely, the LCC showed that incineration needs
higher running costs and provides fewer jobs. It is concluded that an integrated waste
management system is the approach combining many environmental and economic
benefits. Larsen et al. (2009) investigated the potential rise of the recycling rate
through improvements in the collection schemes for recyclables in Aarhus and how
this was reflected in the economic part. The study concluded that the enhancement of
recycling and avoiding of incineration had a positive performance both under an
environmental and economic perspectives. Wrap (2009) realized a study financially
assessing the separation and reprocessing of mixed plastics in UK. The Foolmaun and
Ramleeawon (2012) studied the environmental impacts together with the cost
effectiveness of four alternatives for the disposal of used PET bottles in Mauritius.
The examined alternatives included a combination of landfilling, incineration with
energy recovery and flake production. The combined result of LCA an LCC indicated
the scenario of “75% flake production and 25% landfilling” as the better option.
Foolmaun and Ramleeawon (2012b) took further their previous research by adding
the social paramenter (S-LCA) showing the previously mentioned scenario as the
most sustainable option between the examined scenarios.
2.7. The Sticks’ n sushi case study
Plastic ZERO (2011-2014) is an international waste project which corporates with
public and private sector for the reduction, prevention and recycling of plastic waste
(70). Under this framework, Sticks’ n sushi restaurants chain in Copenhagen,
expressed interest in participating in the project and assessing the possibility of
adopting a ‘’bring back system’’ of their take-away packaging. Sticks’ n sushi
restaurants’ take-away packaging is the case study of the present report.
26
3. Goal and Scope definition
3.1.Goal
The present study aims at assessing and comparing the environmental and economic
impacts caused by the end of life treatment of the plastic take-away food packaging.
The study analyses different alternatives concerning the technology and the strategy
approach. The technological variations include incineration with energy recovery and
different types of recycling while the strategic alternatives include one-use and
reusable packaging solutions. An additional goal is the gathering of foreground
processes’ data from state of the art industries in order to reassure the reliability of the
results. The economic reflection of the different scenarios combined with the
environmental results aims at providing an overview of the sustainability of the
different alternatives.
The target audience of the study are decision makers and main stakeholders of the
plastic packaging waste production and waste management sectors in Copenhagen’s
area (in the present case: all take-away food restaurants in Copenhagen including the
Sticks’ n sushi restaurants, the Plastic ZERO project and the Municipality of
Copenhagen). The results of the study are intended to inform Sticks’ n Sushi
restaurants about the potential impacts caused from the waste management
alternatives of their take away packaging in order to evaluate the possibility of
adopting a ‘’bring back system’’ and possibly change the current way of their
packaging’s disposal. In addition, the results of the study could propose a broad
solution and support a decision for a future plastic packaging waste management
system including all the take-away food restaurants in Copenhagen, under the Plastic
ZERO’s framework and the Municipality’s support.
The present report is a comparative study, planned to be disclosed to the public and
thus all the considered assumptions, methods and the applied data are analytically
presented in the following chapters. The project is not funded.
3.2.Scope
3.2.1. Functional unit
The functional unit (F.U.) of the present study is the waste management of the plastic
packaging containers/boxes that serve the distribution of 1000 equal amounted meals
of takeaway food in the chain from restaurant to the private household.
The study assesses two types of packaging: one-use packaging for Scenario 1,2,3 and
reusable packaging for Scenario 4. The reusable packaging is assessed for 20 times of
use and is thicker than the one-use packaging. The qualitative and quantitative
compositions of the two kinds of packaging are presented in Table 6.
27
Table 6: Qualitative and quantitative composition of boxes
Type of
box
Times
of use
Number of boxes that
serve the distribution
of 1000 meals
Weight of
plastic (kg),
used for the
distribution of
1000 meals
Composition
of PET plastic
One way 1 1000 69 10% Virgin
90% Recycled
Reusable 20 50 6.9 50% Virgin
50% Recycled
3.2.2. Description of Scenarios
The report’s studied scenarios are four and consist of two phases: the upstream
production phase and the disposal phase. The upstream phase includes the processes
related to the packaging production while the disposal phase encloses the processes
after the packaging’s disposal. Despite the fact that this is a waste management LCA
the upstream phase is considered due to the different weight composition of the one-
use and reusable packaging which are assessed in the study. Thus, the addition of the
upstream phase make the systems comparable. The analytical flowcharts of the
scenarios are depicted in Figure 5-Figure 8.
The upstream phase includes the same processes for all the scenarios but applies to
different quantities. More precisely the upstream phase for Scenario 1,2,3 is exactly
the same since the above scenarios assess the same amount and type of packaging.
Contrary the upstream phase of Scenario 4 is quantitative different since the scenario
assesses a different type of packaging applying to different number of pieces.
The processes included in the studied upstream phase of the production are: the
production of virgin PET, the production of foil, the production of the packaging
including also the relevant transportation and the profits of the recycling of
postindustrial scraps.
The waste management alternatives assessed in the scenarios are described below:
Scenario 1 depicts the current waste management situation where the waste food
packaging is collected together with the rest of municipal waste and transported to the
waste to energy plant where it is incinerated with the parallel production of electricity
and heat. The bottom ash is taken to the mineral landfill.
Scenario 2 refers to a monomaterial collection system where the used boxes are
gathered to the restaurants’ sites under the frame of a deposit-and-return system
system, after they have been manually washed. The gathered packaging is collected
from all the participating restaurants and transported to the sorting facility where it
gets sorted, compacted and baled. The compacted bales are transported to United
Kingdom (UK) in a mechanical recycling facility. The output of the facility is hot
28
washed R-flakes which is intended to be used for the production of electronic
packaging. The residuals of the recycling process are taken to the Sanitary landfill
while the residuals of the sorting facility follow the incineration’s route.
Scenario 3 depicts a situation similar to scenario 2 with the addition of some extra
steps after the production of the R-PET flakes aiming to the production of R-flakes
suitable for food contact applications. Thus, the hot washed R-flakes are
decontaminated with the super cleaning process which results to super cleaned flakes.
A part of those flakes is pelletized while another part stays as flakes. The output of the
supercleaned R-flakes and R-pellets is going to be used for the production of new
take-away food packaging. The residuals of the recycling process are taken to the
Sanitary landfill while the residuals of the sorting facility are taken for incineration.
Scenario 4 represents a situation of reusable take-away boxes participating in a
deposit-and-return system. The used boxes after being manually washed are taken
back to the restaurants in order to get reused for a future use. The system is assumed
to work with a refund as driving force. The returned boxes are washed in the
restaurants by a dishwashing machine. The packaging can be reused 20 times,
meaning that the manual and automatic dishwashing takes place 19 times. After the
20 uses, the reusable boxes are collected and transported to the waste to energy
incineration facility in Copenhagen. The incineration’s bottom ash is taken to the
mineral landfill.
29
Incineration
Foil production
Packaging production
Electricity
Electricity
Diesel T
Virgin PET
Use phase
C+T
Scraps
Cut foil
T
Virgin PET
Electricity and heat
Diesel
Diesel
Waste packaging with foodstuffs
Scenario 1
Inputs from the background processes
T
C+T
Foreground processes
Substitutions
Transportation
Collection and transportation
Inputs from the background processes
Output
Heat and electricity
Virgin PET
Figure 5: Analytical flowchart of scenario 1
30
Sorting and compacting
PET Recycling Incineration
Residuals
Residuals
TT
Wastewater treatment
Bales
Manual dishwashing
Landfilling
Foil production
Packaging production
Electricity
Electricity
Diesel T
Virgin PET
Use phase
C+T
Scraps
Cut foil
T
Virgin PET
Diesel
Diesel
Water
Diesel
Electricity Diesel
Diesel
Electricity and heat
T
Wastewater treatment
Water
Natural gas, electricity,
NaOH, water
Diesel
Mineral landfill
TDiesel
Bottom ash
Virgin PP
Waste packaging with
foodstuffs
T
C+T
Foreground processes
Substitutions
Waste treatment of foreground processes’
byproducts
Transportation
Collection and transportation
Inputs from the background processes
Scenario 2
Output
R-PET flakes and pellets (food grade)
Virgin PET
Figure 6: Analytical flowchart of scenario 2
31
Sorting and compacting
PET Reprocessing (recycling,
supercleaning, pelletizing)
Incineration
Residuals
Residuals
TT
Wastewater treatment
Bales
Manual dishwashing
Landfilling
Foil production
Packaging production
Electricity
Electricity
Diesel T
Virgin PET
Use phase
C+T
Scraps
Cut foil
T
Virgin PET
Diesel
Diesel
Water
Diesel
Electricity Diesel
Diesel
Electricity and heat
T
Wastewater treatment
Water
Natural gas, electricity,
NaOH, water
Diesel
Mineral landfill
TDiesel
Bottom ash
Virgin PET
Waste packaging with
foodstuffs
T
C+T
Foreground processes
Substitutions
Waste treatment of foreground processes’
byproducts
Transportation
Collection and transportation
Inputs from the background processes
Scenario 3
Output
R-PET flakes and pellets (food grade)
Virgin PET
Figure 7: Analytical flowchart for scenario 3
32
Automatic dishwashing
(19 times)
Incineration
C+T
Manual dishwashing
(19 times)
Foil production
Packaging production
Electricity
Electricity
Diesel T
Virgin PET
Use phase
Scraps
Cut foil
T
Virgin PET
Diesel
Water
Diesel
Electricity,Water,
detergent, rinsing agent
Wastewater treatment
Mineral landfill
T
Diesel
Bottom ash
Electricity and heat
Waste packaging with
foodstuffs
T
C+T
Foreground processes
Substitutions
Waste treatment of foreground processes’
byproducts
Transportation
Collection and transportation
Inputs from the background processes
Scenario 4
Use phase’s output
Wastewater treatment
Electricity and heat
Virgin PET
Figure 8: Analytical flowchart for scenario 4
33
3.2.3. Modeling framework
The present is a consequential LCA study since it evaluates the environmental and
economic impacts due to a change occurring in the waste management system of the
packaging material.
The modeling of the study was implemented by applying the method of system
expansion with substitution. That means that the emissions of the avoided production
of byproducts/co-products are subtracted from the emissions of the analyzed system.
The subtraction takes place since the above byproducts/co-products do not have to be
produced from marginal resources. This approach usually leads to negative net
impacts which means that the savings are higher than the loads.
The quantitative substitution of the study’s plastic recycling downstream processes
was modeled based on the technical and market substitution. The technical
substitution refers to the material loss coming from the process while the market
substitution refers to the market acceptance of the secondary product 13
(Christensen et
al., 2011). The technical substitution in the study is around 76% and the market
substitution 90% in both types of recycling. The qualitative part was selected based on
the process of virgin plastic production which was substituted. The reuse of water in
the plastic recycling process was substituted with the avoided production of fresh
water from the waterworks.
Under the consequential way of thinking, the processes used for the electric and heat
production in Denmark were the marginal ones, since their production can change
quickly based on the different demands. The coal based energy is considered to be the
marginal energy in many European countries (Christensen et al., 2011). More
information about the exact processes used in the modeling of the technologies are
included in Chapter 4.
The upstream phase which is included in order to make the systems comparable, was
modeled with virgin PET as raw material. This occurred by considering a
consequential point of view and an unsaturated PET recycled market. For unsaturated
markets, when virgin plastic consumption is prevented (in the present case due to the
recycled content of the packaging) virgin PET that would otherwise be used in the
production packaging industry is available for other applications. Thus, under a
consequential point of view, it is expected that the excess of virgin PET will be used
in other applications.
3.2.4. System boundaries
The system boundaries define the processes which are included in the studied system
and separate them of the outer environment. The system boundaries of the present
study are depicted in Figure 9 while the analytical flowcharts for each scenario
separately are presented respectively in Figure 5-Figure 8. 13
Product (fully or partly) made with recycled material
34
Vir
gin
PET
Pack
agin
g pr
oduc
tion
Man
ual d
ishw
ashi
ng WaterWastewater treatment So
rtin
g
Colle
ctio
n &
Tr
ansp
orta
tion Diesel
Tran
spor
tati
onDiesel
Mec
hani
cal R
ecyc
ling Electricity
Landfilling of residuals
Natural gas
Transport of residuals
NaOHWater
Wastewater treatment
Vir
gin
PET
Tran
spor
tati
on
Foil
prod
ucti
on
Vir
gin
PETDiesel Electricity
Tran
spor
tati
on Diesel
Recycling of scraps
Pack
agin
g pr
oduc
tion Electricity
Recycling of cut foil
Transport of cut foil U
se p
hase
Man
ual d
ishw
ashi
ng (1
9 ti
mes
)
Water
Wastewater treatment
Colle
ctio
n &
Tr
ansp
orta
tion
Aut
omat
ic d
ishw
ashi
ng
(19
tim
es)
Electricity Diesel
Was
te to
ene
rgy
inci
ners
atio
n
Transport of bottom ashWater
Detergent
Rinsing agent
Wastewater treatment
Bottom ash landfilling
Electricity
Incineration of residuals
Diesel
Transport of residuals
Transport of bottom ash
Bottom ash landfilling
Colle
ctio
n &
Tr
ansp
orta
tion Diesel
Was
te to
ene
rgy
inci
ners
atio
n Transport of bottom
ash
Bottom ash
landfillingV
irgi
n PE
T
Tran
spor
tati
on
Foil
prod
ucti
onDiesel Electricity
Tran
spor
tati
on Diesel
Recycling of scraps
Pack
agin
g pr
oduc
tion Electricity
Recycling of cut foil
Transport of cut foil U
se p
hase
Vir
gin
PET
Pack
agin
g pr
oduc
tion
Man
ual d
ishw
ashi
ng Water
Wastewater treatment
Sort
ing
Colle
ctio
n &
Tr
ansp
orta
tion Diesel
Tran
spor
tati
onDiesel
Mec
hani
cal R
ecyc
ling
&
Supe
rcle
anin
g
Electricity
Landfilling of residuals
Natural gas
Transport of residuals
NaOH
WaterWastewater treatment
Electricity
Incineration of residuals
Diesel
Transport of residuals
Transport of bottom ash
Bottom ash landfilling
Vir
gin
PET
Tran
spor
tati
on
Foil
prod
ucti
onDiesel Electricity
Tran
spor
tati
on Diesel
Recycling of scraps
Pack
agin
g pr
oduc
tion Electricity
Recycling of cut foil
Transport of cut foil U
se p
hase
Vir
gin
PET
Pack
agin
g pr
oduc
tion
Vir
gin
PET
Tran
spor
tati
on
Foil
prod
ucti
onDiesel Electricity
Tran
spor
tati
on Diesel
Recycling of scraps
Pack
agin
g pr
oduc
tion Electricity
Recycling of cut foil
Transport of cut foil U
se p
hase
Scenario 1
Scenario 3
Scenario 2
Scenario 4
Figure 9: System boundaries for the four scenarios of the study
35
In the present study the system boundaries include the processes of plastic
packaging’s production, the relevant transportation and all the processes following
after the point that packages become waste until the final disposal to incineration or
recycling from where the output is flows.
Upstream productions i.e. energy and raw materials needed in the waste management
are also included in the boundaries of the study. In addition, downstream products
(e.g. wastewater and residuals waste) from the assessed waste management system are
accounted as well.
The construction and the end of life of the technologies and facilities are excluded
from the boundaries. The use phase is also excluded since it is equal for all the
scenarios.
The starting flow of the system boundaries is the production of virgin PET needed for
the production of the examined packaging (different amounts for the production of
reusable and one-use packaging).
The system boundaries of the LCC are identical with the LCA’s in order the two
analyses to supplement each other in the decision process.
3.2.5. General assumptions
The specific assumptions used in the modeling of the study are explained in detail in
Chapter 4. Some of the main assumptions thought are the following:
The studied packaging is made of transparent PET
The bottle grade PET, is used for the modeling of the virgin PET
For the modeling of the production of packages it is assumed that all the
scenarios have the production of 6.9kg (weight of 50 reusable packaging) and
only the upstream of the extra amounts is modeled for scenarios 1, 2, 3.
It is assumed that the recycled PET plastic market is unsaturated; meaning that
the current demand for plastic cannot be fulfilled with recycled plastic thus,
virgin PET needs to complete the demand.
It is also assumed that the transportation of the packaging from households to
the restaurants for the disposal of the one-use packages and the reuse of
reusable packages is combined on the way to work/supermarket etc. and thus
it is not modeled. In addition, it is assumed that the above transportation can
also take place by the delivery boy on his way back to the restaurant after the
delivery of a new order.
It is assumed that all the users of the packaging in scenario 2,3 and 4 follow
the step of washing the waste product before to send it back for recycling or
reuse. The followed type of washing is manual, including only the use of
water (without detergent), as it is a rough washing aiming to the removal of
the foodstuff.
36
In the scenario of reuse, it is considered that there are no material losses due to
damages and all the boxes are returned back to the restaurant for reuse. For the
rest of the scenario it is respectively assumed that all the used packaging is
send for incineration or recycling respectively.
3.2.6. Impact Assessment criteria
In the present report, the impact method used for the calculation of the results is the
ILCD Recommended method and the modeling tool is EASETECH. The assessment
of the environmental performance was analyzed for all the impact categories of the
chosen method. The normalization of the results was performed with the
normalization factors of the method, as found in EASETECH in July 2013. The study
does not include weighting of the impact categories since it is a comparative study
intended to be publically disclosed (International Standardization Organization,
2006).
The chosen method is a combination of other existing impact methods and
environmental models which are considered to be the most suitable for the evaluation
of each impact category separately (European Commission-Joint Research Centre -
Institute for Environment and Sustainability, 2011). Based on that concept, the
particular method was decided to be applied for the calculation of the project’s results.
Table 7 presents the analyzed impact categories with the abbreviations used in the
present study, the respective normalization factors and the originating method.
The impact categories can be divided in three larger groups: non-toxic, toxic and
resource depletion group. The non-toxic group is consisted from the first 7 categories,
according to the Table’s order of appearance, the toxic group is consisted of the next
three impact categories and the last group is consisted of the last two categories.
A short description of the main contributors of each category sourcing from the waste
management systems is given in Annex A3 for the better interpretation of the results.
Concerning the economic part of the report, the assessment took place by converting
all the assessed costs and revenues to the present monetary value and by calculating
the net cost. The net cost of each process is calculated by summing up the costs and
the revenues of each process under the consumer’s or the payer’s perspective. The
final net cost of each scenario comes from the addition of the net costs of all the
processes included in the scenario. The currency of the study is Danish kroners
(DKK).
37
Table 7: Impact categories with their normalization factors used in EASETECH in July 2013 and with the origin of the recommended impact category
Impact category Abbreviation in
current study
Normalization
factor
Origin/
description
1.Climate change CC 7.73E+03 IPCC 2007
2.Stratospheric ozone
depletion
SOD 2.05E-02 EDIP
3.Photochemical
oxidant formation
POF 5.29E+01 ReCiPe Midpoint
4.Terrestrial
acidification
TA 4.99E+01 ReCiPe Midpoint
5.Eutrophication
potential
EP 3.56E+02 CML 2001
6.Freshwater
eutrophication
FE 9.60E-01 ReCiPe Midpoint
7.Particulate matter PM 4.71E+00 Updated from
Humbert 2009 by
Laurent 2012
8.Human toxicity,
carcinogenic
HTC 3.25E-05 USEtox, DTU
updated version
9.Human toxicity,
non-carcinogenic
HTNC 8.14E-04 USEtox, DTU
updated version
10.Ecotoxicity, total ET 5.06E+03 USEtox, DTU
updated version
11.Depletion of
abiotic resources,
fossil
DARF 8.06E+04
CML 2012
12.Depletion of
abiotic resources
DAR 2.17E-01 CML 2013
3.2.7. Data source and technological scope
As already mentioned, one of the goals of the study was the acquisition of
representative data directly from the industry, for the modeling of the foreground
processes.
To begin with, the weight of the one- packaging was obtained by personal contact
with the Stick’s n Sushi manager (Gaard, 2013).
The data used for building up the packaging production process were obtained by
visiting the Donplast industry in Søro, in Denmark where the studied plastic
packaging is produced (Nielsen, 2013). The visit in the site except of the technical and
economic data, gave a visualization of the production process combined with useful
information about the different types of packaging made of recycled PET, the
transportation route of the produced packaging and the processes which need to take
place before the final production of the box.
38
Following, the data used for the modeling of the production of the foil and the super
cleaning process were obtained after a multiple and continuous personal contact with
the relevant industry (Foil's Production Industry, 2013). A large volume of crucial
information concerning the composition of the different foils, technical parameters of
the super cleaning process, the specificity of the recycled plastic for food contact
applications as well as economic data were also provided by the same source. The
industry providing these data prefers to be kept unanimous.
The volume, the type of engine and the consumption of the trucks used for the
collection and transportation of the municipal waste to the incinerator are data
obtained directly from the Municipality of Copenhagen (Municipality of Copenhagen,
2013). The cost of the waste’s collection and transportation, the energy tax and the
gate fee paid to the incineration of Vestforbrænding were also obtained from the same
source (Municipality of Copenhagen, 2013).
Data concerning the truck used for the collection and transportation of the recyclable
material was obtained by personal contact with the Danskretursystem. Unfortunately
data concerning the applied processes in Danskereturnsystem as well as operational
costs were information denied to be given (Danskreturnsystem, 2013). Thus, the data
for sorting facility’s modeling was obtained by Perugini et al. (2005). The cost of the
process was estimated.
The transportation of the raw material to the foil’s production faciliy was based on the
consumption given by personal contact with the Foil's Production Industry (2013).
The transportation of the foil from U.K. to Donplast in Denmark was modeled
following the route indicated by Nielsen N. (2013).
The data for the modeling of the mechanical recycling process were obtained from
Perugini et al. (2005). The process of converting the flakes to pellets were modeled
with data obtained from Shen et al. (2010).
Processes applied to the background system were basically obtained from the
Ecoinvent, EASEWASTE’S or EASETECH’s database. The distances were estimated
from Google Maps (Google Maps, 2013).
The prices of the materials, as well as the capital costs and the gate fees were based on
many different sources including personal contact with the industry and the
Municipality of Copenhagen, various relevant reports, industries’ websites and
brochures, personal research in the Danish market and assumptions.
3.2.8. Time and geographical scope
The reference year for the comparison of the scenarios as well as for the costing of the
systems is 2013. Concerning the LCA part, when no data were available for this year
the used data tried to be as up-to-dated as possible without exciding the last decade.
Most of the data used for the setup of the foreground processes are collected during
39
the reference year 2013 (e.g. packaging production process, foil production process,
transportation, and waste to energy process).
The geographical scope of the study focuses on two countries: Denmark (DK) and
United Kingdom (U.K). DK is the starting point for the assessed packaging waste
production. The choice of involving UK in the scenarios sources from the
representation of the actual studied processes. When no processes could be found for
two those countries European data were applied.
3.2.9. Critical review
The evaluation of the present thesis report by the external examiner can be considered
as critical review since the above person has not been involved in the implementation
of the project.
40
4. Life cycle Inventory analysis (LCIA)
The present chapter focuses on the project’s data collection and the modeling of the
studied system according to the goal and scopes’ framework. The considered
assumptions are also included and explained. The inventory phase is the most effort
requiring and time consuming part of an LCA.
The quality of the used data, which is related to its representativeness, completeness
and precision, is of crucial importance. Technological, temporal and geographical
aspects must be taken under consideration for the appropriate selection of the data.
Obtaining specific data 14
is the best possible choice which is not thought always
feasible. The alternative is to use data or processes from other sources. The data used
in the modeling of the present study aimed to apply as much as possible to the above
parameters.
In the present study, EASETECH’s and EASEWASTE’s databases as well as
Ecoinvent database were used for the modeling of the background processes.
4.1. Studied packaging
The studied packaging is a one-use PET plastic box composed of a black bottom part
and a transparent cover used by the Sticks’n Sushi restaurants for the packaging of the
take-away orders. The restaurant uses a variety of packages differing on the shape and
the enclosed amount of food. The present study focuses to the most popularly used
box which weights 69g; 35g the bottom part and 34 the cover (Gaard, 2013). The
width of the above packaging is 5.5mm.
The reusable packaging is not used in the reality. It was assumed that the reusable
packaging weights double as one-use packaging does, according to the situation
occurring for the refillable bottles (Christensen & Fruergaard, 2011). It was also
assumed that the box can be reused 20 times according to the same source
(Christensen & Fruergaard, 2011). Thus, the reusable box’s weight was assumed to be
138g; 70g the bottom part and 68g the cover.
The black color used in the packaging could be major issue even in a closed loop
recycling15
(Foil's Production Industry, 2013). This problem occurs due to the Near
Infra-Red (NIR) sorting technology which is currently applied in the recycling plants
for sorting the PET (Foil's Production Industry, 2013). Carbon black which is the
main colorant for food contact packaging absorbs the NIR and cannot be sorted by the
above mentioned technology (Dvorak et al., 2011). That is the reason why some
companies are working on a masterbatch for black that overcomes the problem (Foil's
Production Industry, 2013). For all the above technical reasons, it is assumed that the
whole box is consisted of transparent PET plastic.
14
Specific data set refers to measured data representing the specific process/system 15
Closed loop recycling: The secondary good is used in the same application from where it case from
41
4.2. Upstream processes
The upstream processes of all the scenarios include the foil production in UK, the
transportation of the produced foil to the packaging production facility in DK, the
transportation of the cut foils back to the foil’s production facility in UK for recycling
and the recycling of the scraps and the cut foil coming of the foil and packaging
production respectively. The virgin PET, the electricity and the diesel used as flows in
the foreground processes are produced by the background processes. Figure 10
depicts the upstream processes quantitatively and qualitatively.
The recycling is depicted through the avoided production of virgin PET. The process
was substituted with virgin PET and not of a lower quality of plastic, since both the
scraps and the cut foil are postindustrial plastics coming from virgin input and virgin
foil respectively. In the present report, the bottle grade PET, was used for the
modeling of the virgin PET. Differences between the types of PET can be found in
Annex B2.1. The credits for the recycling were counted in the different processes (foil
production, packaging production) according to the amount which was saved in each
facility.
The steps followed for the upstream production of the packaging were the same for all
the scenarios. However, the quantitative processes were not the same as Scenario
1,2,3 use a larger input amount of virgin PET than Scenario 4. As can be seen from
Table 6, the produced amount of one-use packaging for the first three scenarios was
69 kg while for the reusable packaging used in fourth scenario was only 6.9 kg.
Considering that both types of packaging are made of virgin PET it was assumed that
the production of 6,9kg took place for all the scenarios, thus only the extra amount
(62.1kg) needed to be modeled for Scenarios 1,2,3. The description of every used
process and flow together with the reason of its choice is analyzed in the following
sections of the chapter while Table 8 , summarizes the main characteristics of the
processes used in the upstream phase.
42
Table 8: Characteristics of the processes used in the modeling of the upstream phase
Process Place Name of used process Numerical
info
Type of use Database
Virgin PET
flow
Polyethylene terephthalate, granulate, bottle grade, at plant, RER Ecoinvent
Foil
production
UK Electricity, production mix GB, GB 0.406kWh/kg Consumption Ecoinvent
Polyethylene terephthalate, granulate, bottle grade, at plant, RER 0.153kg/kg
input
Substitution Ecoinvent
Transportation
UK-DK
UK Transport Vehicle, 25t EURO5, motorway, 1 liter diesel, 2006 0.00001
l/km/kg
Consumption EASEWASTE
DK Transport Vehicle, 25t EURO5, motorway, 1 liter diesel, 2006 0.00003
l/km/kg
Consumption EASEWASTE
UK-
DK
Transport, transoceanic freight ship, OCE Ecoinvent
Packaging
production
DK Marginal Electricity Consumption incl. Fuel Production, Coal,
Energy Quality, DK, kWh, 2006
1kWh/kg Consumption EASETECH
Polyethylene terephthalate, granulate, bottle grade, at plant, RER 0.324kg/kg
input
Substitution Ecoinvent
43
Foil production(Efficiency: 83%)
Packaging production
(Efficiency: 64%)
Electricity39.4kwh
Electricity 97.6 KWh
Diesel
Virgin PET117kg
Scraps
Cut foil
T
Virgin PET17.9kg
Diesel
Scenario 1,2,3
Transportation
Packaging 62.1kg
Inputs from the background processes
T
Foreground processes
Substitutions
Transportation
Inputs from the background processes
Output
Virgin PET31.5kg
Figure 10: Upstream processes as modeled in scenarios 1,2,3.
4.2.1. Virgin PET flow
The modeling of the upstream processes started with the creation of a flow
representing the Virgin PET pellets. As the EASETECH is software for the
assessment of waste management scenarios, the existing flows refer only to different
waste fractions. Thus, the virgin PET flow including the upstream impacts of its
production had to be created. The upstream impacts were modeled by using the
process: ‘’polyethylene terephthalate, granulate, bottle grade, at plant, RER’’ exported
from Ecoinvent database. The virgin PET pellets are bottle graded and constitute the
clearest and purest form of PET plastic; that is the reason why the above process was
chosen for the representation of their extraction. The data of the process refer to
European scope. Snapshots of the flow’s modeling in EASETECH can be found in
Annex B1.1.
4.2.2. Foil production
The represented facility of foil production is situated in UK and is involved in the
production chain of the studied packaging. The foil production process converts the
input plastic resins to roles of foil by melting and reforming the plastic.
44
In the present case, the input material was virgin PET pellets which was converted to
virgin PET foil with an efficiency of 83%. Except from the plastic input, energy and
anti-block additives were needed to be added in the process. The presence of anti-
block additive prevents the blocking16
of the plastics while the electricity is used for
the melting and forming stage. In the present study the anti-block additive was not
modeled due to the negligible used amount per kilo of input. Data for the modeling of
foil production process were obtained directly from the industry (Foil's Production
Industry, 2013). Annex B2.2contains the detailed data.
The virgin PET flow was linked to the actual process of foil production, representing
the input of virgin PET pellets. The process used for the modeling of the electricity
was imported from Ecoinvent database and corresponds to the geographical scope of
the process. The modeled consumption was 0.406kWh/kg of input (Foil's Production
Industry, 2013).
The recycling of scraps, coming from the foil production process was modeled as the
avoided production of virgin PET. The process used for the substitution was the one
previously used for the production of virgin PET. The choice of the process was based
on the quality of the substitution (bottle graded PET) and the process’ European
scope. No transportation was needed to be considered here, since the scraps are the
postindustrial PET which is internally recycled in the industry (see Chapter 2.3.5.).
The market substitution for the recycled material in the foil production process is 90%
and the substituted amount is 0.153kg/kg 17
of input.
4.2.3. Transportation from the foil production facility in UK to the packaging
production facility in DK and vice versa
The foil’s transportation from the foil’s production facility in UK to the packaging
production facility in DK involves two changes and two different types of means:
truck and ship. According to information obtained of personal contact with the
involved facilities (Foil's Production Industry, 2013 ; Nielsen, 2013) the followed
route is: foil production facility (FPF) - Immingham port - Esbjerg port - packaging
production facility (PPF). The modeled distances were estimated from Google Maps.
Table 9 presents the starting and the ending destination, the used means of
transportation and the distances used for the modeling part.
Table 9: Transportation route, mean of transport and length of transported distance
Transportation route Mean of transport Length of distance (km)
FPF- Immingham Truck 229
Immingham- Esbjerg Ship 585
Esbjerg-PPF Truck 220
16
Blocking is a common problem met in plastic foil’s manufacturing and refers to the adhesion of two
adjacent layers of film 17
0.17*0.90=0.153
45
The transportation of long distances is affected up to a great extent from the
transported distance and that is the reason why it was modeled based on fuel
consumption per kilo transported per kilometer (l/kg/km). The consumption used for
the transportation with truck in UK was 0.00001 l/km/kg (Foil's Production Industry,
2013) while for DK was 0.00003 l/km/kg (Sanchez Martinez & Møller, 2011).The
transportation with truck for both countries was modeled with EURO 5 engine trucks
applying to the real situation. The emissions of the process were transferred manually
from EASEWASTE’s database.
The process used for the modeling of the water transportation was a choice of
assumption since no relevant data was available. The process was imported from
Ecoinvent database and it was considered the most suitable for the suspended process,
among the few available ones. The environmental impacts of the above process are
dependent on the inserted transportation distance.
The same combination of means, technologies and distances was used for the
modeling of the transportation of the cut foil from DK to UK.
4.2.4. Packaging production
The represented packaging production facility is Donplast A/S, situated in Søro,
Denmark and is the site where the studied packaging is produced. The data needed for
the modeling of the process was obtained during the visit to the facility and by
personal contact with the company’s manager for additional information (Nielsen,
2013).
The process of production takes place in a thermoforming machine that can be
divided in different ‘’parts’’. Firstly, the foil passes by the heaters where it becomes
totally soft in order to be easily formed. In the second part, the desired forming tool 18
has been placed so as to form the foil in the desired shape of packaging. After this
step, the formed packaging is passed through the next part where a knife cuts the rest
of the foil. Then the packaging goes out of the machine where it is manually packed
in boxes. In the ending of the machine, the cut foil is turned through a cylinder in
order to be disposed in the container of its color, get granulated and send back to UK
for recycling as industrial post material. Cuttings are separated and granulated in
colors. Pictures of the visit in the facility and the different steps of the described
procedure can be found in Annex B2.3.1 together with some additional information
coming from the site.
The material inputs of the process are the foil and electricity. The efficiency of the
process19
was calculated to be 64% based on the average monthly foil’s consumption
and average monthly packaging production. Thus, the rest 36% is the cut foil which is
recycled in the foil’s production facility.
18
Forming tools are molds, used in order to give to the foil the desired shape (see Appendix B1.3.1.) 19
Efficiency of the packaging production refers to the packaging produced per kilo of used foil
46
The process used for the modeling of the electricity consumption reflected the
geographical scope of the suspended process applying to Danish reality and it was
found in EASETECH’s database. The modeled consumption was 1kWh/kg (Foil's
Production Industry, 2013).
The recycling of cut foil was modeled as the avoided production of virgin PET. The
process used for the substitution was the one previously used for the recycling of
scraps in the foil’s production industry. The recycling of the cut foil was substituted
with bottle grade PET, since it is postindustrial material coming from virgin PET and
without having been mixed with other types of plastics. The market substitution for
the recycled material is 90%. Thus, the substituted amount was 0.324kg/kg 20
of input.
The transportation of the cut foil from DK back to UK was modeled with the way
described in Chapter 4.2.3. Snapshots of packaging production’s modeling in
EASETECH can be found in Annex B1.4.
4.3. Disposal phase
Opposite to the upstream production, the disposal phase contained different steps for
each scenario. Some of the processes however, were met in more than one scenario
and they were modeled with the same way, based on the same data and assumptions.
The following sections analytically describe all the modeled processes as they were
met in the course of the scenarios while Tables summarizing the modeled processes
included in each Scenario in order to give a clearer and quicker overview.
4.3.1. Waste packaging flow
The input of the disposal phase for all the scenarios was the used packaging together
with the stack foodstuffs on it, after the removal of the leftovers. The quantity input
thought, was different among the fourth and the rest of the scenarios, due to the
different type of packaging. Table 10 gives an overview of the qualitative and
quantitative description of the input flow.
The amount of foodstuff used for the study’s purposes was found in (Gilleßen et al.,
2013) and it corresponds to the amount of food used in standard EN 50242 21
for
scientific investigations for manual dishwashing. It was assumed an equal amount of
meat and vegetables in a total amount of 1.44 g of foodstuff per used packaging.
Additional information concerning the calculation of the amount and the type of
soiling, can be found in Annex C2.1.
20
0.36*0.90=0.324 21
The scientific investigations for manual dishwashing follow the standard EN 50242 in order to obtain
comparable results. The standard determines how the food has to be distributed on the studied dishes
and specifies the assessment of the study’s cleaning results (Gilleßen et al., 2013)
47
Table 10: Characteristics of waste flow
Waste flow Number of
boxes
Plastic (kg) Foodstuff
(kg)
Total input
kg %
Scenario
1,2,3
1000 69 1.44 70.44 100
Plastic 69 98
Vegetables 0.72 1
Meat 0.72 1
Scenario 4 50 6.9 0.072 6.97 100
Plastic 6.9 99
Vegetables 0.036 0.5
Meat 0.036 0.5
The modeling of the waste flow included three fractions: plastic bottles representing
the virgin amount of plastic contained in the packaging, vegetable food waste and
animal food waste fractions representing the stack foodstuff. The last column of Table
10 depicts the values inserted in EASEWASTE, while the snapshots of the program
are presented in Annex C1.1.
4.3.2. Scenario 1
The disposal phase of Scenario 1 consisted of the collection and transportation of the
used packaging to the Vestforbrænding incineration plant. The bottom ash coming out
as a byproduct of the incineration process was transported to the mineral landfill
where it was landfilled. The visualization of the process is presented in Figure 5. The
EASETECH’S snapshot depicting the modeled scenario is presented in Annex C1.2,
while Table 11 summarizes the processes used for the modeling of the Scenario 1.
The enclosed processes of Incineration and Bottom landfilling processes can be seen
by the relevant program’s snapshots.
Table 11: Summary of the processes used in the disposal phase’s modeling of Scenario 1, together with basic characteristics
Process -Location Name of used
process
Numerical
info
Type of use Database
Collection and
transportation
DK Collection
vehicle, 10t
EURO5, urban
traffic, 1lt diesel,
2006
0.003 l/kg Consumption EASEWASTE
Waste
incineration
DK Waste
Incineration,
generic, DK, 2012
Includes
substitution
EASETECH
Transportation
to mineral
landfill
DK Transportation
Vehicle, 25t
Euro5, motorway,
1 liter diesel,
2006’’
0.00003 l
diesel/kg/km
Consumption EASEWASTE
Bottom ash
landfill
DK Bottom ash
landfill
EASETECH
48
4.3.2.1. Collection and transportation of the waste to the Vestforbrænding plant
The collection of the packaging and its transportation to the Vestforbrænding
Incineration facility was modeled as one process and contrary to the transportation of
long distances, the collection’s modeling is based on the fuel consumption per
collected kilo (l/kg). The above consumption represents the amount of diesel used for
the waste collection from the first bin till the last bin and is basically depending on the
type of truck, the type of waste and the type of housing area covered (EASETECH
course 7-25 January 2013, 2013). The number of stops, the length of the covered
distance and the collection frequency are parameters included in the definition of
‘’housing area’’ and ‘’type of waste’’. Thus, it is not needed to know the exact length
of the collection route (EASETECH course 7-25 January 2013, 2013).
The diesel consumption for the present collection and transportation route together
with the volume and the type of truck used was information given by the Municipality
of Copenhagen 22
(2013). The collection vehicle used for the modeling of the process
was chosen to correspond as much as possible to the volume and the type of truck of
the real situation. The truck’s process was imported manually from EASEWASTE’s
database. The consumption used was 0.003 l/kg (Municipality of Copenhagen, 2013).
The snapshot of the modeling of the process in EASEWASTE can be found in
Appendix C.1.2.
4.3.2.2. Incineration with energy recovery in Vestforbrænding plant
The process used for the modeling of Vestforbrænding incineration plant was found in
EASETECH’s database. The process describes a Danish Incineration plant in 2012
whose flue-gas cleaning system is based on Vestforbrænding’s. The modeled plant
combines the production of heat and electricity with an efficiency of 22% and 73%
respectively. The substitution of the produced energy is included in the process. The
environmental impacts of the process are calculated by subtracting the emissions of
the substituted processes from the thermal plant’s emissions (EASETECH course 7-
25 January 2013, 2013). The EASEWASTE’s snapshot depicting the process’
included processes can be found in Annex C.1.2.
4.3.2.3. Transportation to the mineral landfill
The transportation of the bottom ash to the mineral landfill was modeled for a
transportation distance of 70 km and a diesel consumption of 0.00003 l diesel/kg/km
based on Danish data used in Sanchez Martinez & Møller (2011). The truck used was
the same as in Chapter 4.2.3 as it was assumed to apply to the same minimum engine
type’s demand of EYRO5 as the collection trucks do. Annex C1.2 includes the
EASETECH’s snapshot depicting the modeled process. 22
All of the currently used tucks are diesel powered, applying to a minimum demand of EURO5
engine. On average, a truck collects and delivers to incineration 5,5 tons of waste (Municipality of
Copenhagen, 2013)
49
4.3.2.4. Bottom ash landfill
The process used for the modeling of mineral landfill was found in EASETECH’s
database and includes the modeling of leachate generation. The EASEWASTE’s
snapshot depicting the enclosed processes of the process can be found in Annex C1.2.
4.3.3. Scenario 2
The disposal phase of Scenario 2 includes the manual washing of the used packaging
at home, the collection of all the packaging from the restaurants and their
transportation to the sorting facility, the sorting and the compunction of the
packaging, the transportation of the bales to UK for recycling, the recycling process
and the waste treatment of the byproducts coming out of the sorting and the recycling
facility. The waste management of the residuals coming out of the sorting facility
include: the transportation of the residuals to the Vestforbrænding incineration plant,
the incineration of the waste in Vestforbrænding with the combined production of
electricity and heat, the transportation of the bottom ash to the mineral landfill and the
landfilling of the bottom ash. The present waste route concerning the waste
management of residuals was chosen based on the current Danish management
system which applies incineration with energy recovery. The waste management of
the residuals coming out of the recycling facility includes: the transportation of the
residuals to the sanitary landfill and the process of landfilling. The landfilling of the
residuals was chosen as waste management option since the recycling process takes
place in UK where landfilling is the dominant waste management option (The
environment Agency, 2013). The visualization of the process is depicted in Figure 6,
while the overview of the modeled processes together with basic information are
presented in Table 12. EASETECH’s snapshots depicting all the modeled processes
of the scenario can be seen in Annex C1.3.
4.3.3.1. Transportation to the restaurant
The transportation of the packaging waste to the restaurant was excluded of the
modeling process assuming that it was combined with a different route that had to be
done any way (e.g. on the way to work, supermarket, gym etc.). It was also assumed
that the packaging could be taken back to the collection point by the delivery-boy to
his way back to the restaurant, after the delivery of the new order. Therefore it was
assumed that the present transportation could be excluded from the study’s modeling.
50
Table 12: Summary of processes used in the modeling of Scenario 2, Scenario 3, together with basic information
Process – Location Name of used process Numerical info Type of use Database
Manual
dishwashing
(Sc1,2,3)
DK Water from waterworks, Sweden, 2008 121.9 kg/kg
input
Consumption EASETECH
Treatment, sewage, to wastewater treatment, class 2, CH 0.1219 m3/kg
input
Consumption Ecoinvent
Collection and
transportation
DK Collection vehicle, 10t EURO5, urban traffic, 1lt diesel, 2006 0.003 l/kg Consumption EASEWASTE
Sorting facility DK Marginal Electricity Consumption incl. Fuel Production, Coal,
Energy Quality, DK, kWh, 2006
0.02488kWh/kg
input
Consumption EASETECH
Marginal Electricity Consumption incl. Fuel Production, Coal,
Energy Quality, DK, kWh, 2006
0.034kWh/kg
input
Consumption EASETECH
Forklift, combustion 1L of diesel, 2003/2011 0.002l/kg input Consumption EASETECH
Recycling * UK See Chapter 4.3.3.6 (Scenario 2) or Chapter 4.3.4.1.(Scenario3)
Transportation
UK-DK
UK Transport Vehicle, 25t EURO5, motorway, 1 liter diesel, 2006 0.00001 l/km/kg Consumption EASEWASTE
DK Transport Vehicle, 25t EURO5, motorway, 1 liter diesel, 2006 0.00003 l/km/kg Consumption EASEWASTE
UK-
DK
Transport, transoceanic freight ship, OCE Ecoinvent
Transportation to
the Sanitary landfill
UK Transportation Vehicle, 25t Euro5, motorway, 1 liter diesel, 2006’’ 0.00001 l
diesel/kg/km
Consumption EASEWASTE
Sanitary landfill UK Process-specific burdens, sanitary landfill, CH Ecoinvent
Transportation to
Incineration plant
DK Transportation Vehicle, 25t Euro5, motorway, 1 liter diesel, 2006’’ 0.00003 l
diesel/kg/km
Consumption EASEWASTE
Waste incineration DK Waste Incineration, generic, DK, 2012 Includes
substitution
EASETECH
Transportation to
mineral landfill
DK Transportation Vehicle, 25t Euro5, motorway, 1 liter diesel, 2006’’ 0.00003 l
diesel/kg/km
Consumption EASEWASTE
Bottom ash landfill DK Bottom ash landfill EASETECH
51
4.3.3.2. Manual dishwashing
It was assumed that all the studied packaging was manually washed before to be
brought back to the restaurant. It was also assumed that the washing was more like a
flushing without including the use of soap or heated water. The modeled water
consumption was set to be 8.6 l/packaging according to Stamminger et al. (2007). The
used water-process was chosen based on its geographical scope since there was no
relevant process available depicting the Danish reality.
In addition to the water consumption, the modeling of the manual dishwashing
process included the wastewater treatment of the used water. No relevant process
could be found coresponding to the actual danish technology. Thus it was chosen a
relevant process of the Ecoinvent datbase which according to the description, refers to
a wastewater treatment technology for municipal wastewater applied in modern
plants in Europe. The choise of the secondary treatment plant (class 2) was made
based on Doka G. (2003) where 85% of the population in Denmark is connected to a
secondary or/and tertiary treatment plant. Thus an assumption was made that
Copenhagen is connected to a treatment plant of class2.
The removal of foodstaff during the washing process was modeled to be 66% based
on the cleaning efficiency of the study’s results of Stamminger et al. (2007).
The inserted numbers in the model were calculated based on the number of dirty
packaging consisting 1kg of input since EASETECH’s calculations are performed per
kilo of input. For the case of the single-use packaging, 1kg of input contains 14.2
packages. The analytical calculations of the cleaning efficiency and the model’s input
can be found in Annex C2.2 together with the obtained data from Stamminger et al.
(2007). Snapshots of the modeling of the process in EASETECH can be found in
Annex C1.3.
4.3.3.3. Collection and transportation of the packaging from the restaurants to the
Sorting facility
The collection of the waste packaging from the different restaurants and its
transportation to the sorting facility was modeled in the same way and based on the
same consumptions described in Chapter 4.3.2.1 for the collection and transportation
of the waste to the incineration plant.
4.3.3.4. Sorting facility
The Sorting facility of the study is placed in Denmark and it is considered to be the
Danskretursystem’ facility in Copenhagen which is responsible for the deposit and
return system (see Chapter 2.3.3).
Due to the fact that the real data was denied to be given, the modeling of the sorting
process was based on data obtained from Perugini et al. (2005). The modeled data
refer to a combination of manual and automatic operations coming directly from three
52
Italian sorting companies (Perugini et al., 2005). Since the above mentioned data refer
to a collection process of PE and PET containers, their sorting efficiencies were added
assuming that both refer to PET. Therefore, the modeled sorting efficiency was 75%.
The Sorting facility’s modeling consisted of the electric energy needed for the sorting
of the plastic (0.02488 kWh/kg input), the electric energy needed for the compaction
of the plastic (0.034 kWh/kg input) and the diesel used as a fuel for the forklifts used
in the facility (0.002 l/kg input). The EASETECH’s snapshot depicting the modeling
of the process is included in Annex C1.3.
The consumptions used for the modeling of the process were given in MJ by Perugini
et al. (2005). Thus, the conversion of the MJ of diesel to l/kg input was occurred
based of the energy content of the diesel oil automotive23
.
4.3.3.5. Transportation from the Sorting facility in DK to the Recycling plant in UK
The transportation of the sorted PET waste from the Sorting facility in DK to the
Recycling plant in UK was modeled in the same way as described in Chapter 4.2.3,
with only difference the transported distances. The following route was assumed to
take place in the present transportation: Sorting facility to Esbjerg port- Esbjerg port
to Immingham port- Immingham port to Recycling plant by using the following
means respectively: truck, ship , truck. The modeled distances were estimated from
Google Maps. Table 13 presents the relevant transporting data.
Table 13: Transportation route, mean of transport and length of transported distance
Transportation route Mean of transport Length of distance (km)
Sorting facility-Esbjerg Truck 290
Esbjerg-Immingham port Ship 585
Immingham-Recycling plant Truck 230
According to information obtained by personal contact with the Danskretursystem
(Danskreturnsystem, 2013) the sorted plastic is transported with large trucks up to
48tn or small trucks up to 7.5tn of EURO4 or EURO5 engine. Thus, it was assumed
as average the same type of truck and the same consumption as described in Chapter
4.2.3. The part of the English transportation was based on assumption as previously
done (Chapter 4.2.3).
4.3.3.6. Mechanical Recycling process
The Recycling facility considered in the study is situated in UK and is one of the
companies which supply the Foil production facility with recycled PET. The data
used for the modeling of the recycling process were taken from Arena et al. (2003)
and Perugini et al. (2005), coming from on-side investigations. The efficiency of the
23
Diesel oil automotive contains 38.6 MJ/l, source: (Glenn Elert and his students, 2006, 2008)
53
process was 76% and the same efficiency was also assumed for the removal of the
stack foodstuff.
The represented recycling process included a prewashing step, a magnetic separation
step in order to separate the ferrous material, a X-ray separation for the removal of
PVC, the washing step of the sorted PET, a flotation step for the separation of the
HDPE plastic, the drying of the cleaned PET and a final fine screening in order to
remove the very thin parts (Arena et al., 2003; Perugini et al., 2005). The prewashing
and the washing steps were realized by the use of water and NaOH solusion while the
flotation step by the use of water and chemicals. The chemicals used in the flotation
step were considered a cut off due to their negiglible amount. The wastewater coming
out from the washing, prewashing and flotation step was partly treated while part of
the treated water was reused in the washing and prewashing step. Figure 11, depicts
the modeled process while Table 14 summarizes the modeled processes consting the
recycling process.
PET-Reprocessing (Efficiency 76%)
Mechanical Recycling process
Wastewater treatment
3.75 kg
Fresh water 1.5 kg
1kg PETFresh water 4.5 kg
NaOH 0.002 kg
Methane energy 1.9MJ
Electric energy 0.8
MJ
0.76 kg R-PET flakes
Scraps 0.24kg
Wastewater 4.5 kg
Treated water taken for
reuse 1.5kg
Untreated wastewater
0.75kg
Treated wastewater
3.75kg
No reused treated
wastewater 2.25kg
Flows (input and output)
Processes
Substitution
Reuse
Virgin PP0.684kg
Figure 11: Mechanical Recycling process
54
Table 14: Modeled processes consisting the Mechanical Recycling process
Name of used process Numerical info Type of use Database
Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), RER,
ELCD, 1996
0.002kg/kg input Consumption EASETECH
Water from Waterworks,
Sweden,2008
4.5kg/kg in put Consumption EASETECH
Water from Waterworks,
Sweden,2008
1.5kg/kg in put Substitution EASETECH
Electricity, production mix GB,
GB
0.224kWh/kg Consumption Ecoinvent
Natural gas in Industry Burner
(prod+comb), >100Kq, 1996
1.9 MJ/kg Consumption EASETECH
Waste water treatment, EU-27,
ELCD, 2003
3.75 kg/kg input Consumption EASETECH
Polypropylene, granulate, at plant,
RER
0.684kg/kg input Substitution Ecoinvent
The NaOH solusion used in the process contains 30% of NaOH. Thus, the amount of
modeled NaOH was calculated based on that consistency. The process chosen for the
treatment of the effluent water applies to industrial wastewater treatment in Europe
and as a matter of fact it is different than the one used in the dishwashing process.
Concerning the methane gas consumption, it was modeled as natural gas since methan
is the primary component of natural gas (EPA United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Last updated 9/9/13).
As explained in Chapter 3.2.3, the quantitative part of the recycling process’
substitution was modeled in the present study according to the technial and market
substitution. The output R-PET flakes were intended to be used for the production of
a recycled foil for electronic packaging. The foil consists of 90% recycled material
and 10% virgin 24
(Foil's Production Industry, 2013). Thus, the market substitution in
the present case is 90% and the technical substitution which depicts the recycling
process’ efficiency is 76%. Based on that, the quantitative substitution is 0.684kg/kg
of input while the qualitative substitution is the polypropylene (PP) production since
the electronic packaging would have been produced by PP if there was no recycled
PET available (Christensen & Fruergaard, 2011). The snapcoshot of the recycling’s
modeling is presented in Annex C1.3.
4.3.3.7. Transportation of residuals to the Sanitary landfill
The transportation of residual waste from the Recycling facility to the Sanitary
landfill was assumed to take place with the type of truck (25t, EURO5) and the diesel
consumption (0.00001 l/kg) described in Chapter 4.2.3 for the English road
transportation. The distance of the transportation to the Sanitary landfill, it was
24
The virgin part in this type of foil is used due to reprocessing reasons (Foil's Production Industry,
2013)
55
assumed to be the same as the one used in Chapter 4.3.2.3 for the Bottom ash landfill
in DK. Snapshot of the modeling in EASETECH can be found in Annex C1.3.
4.3.3.8. Sanitary landfill
The process used for the representation of the Sanitary landfill’s emissions was
exported from Ecoinvent database. The process refers to Swiss technology which
according to the description applies to modern landfills in Europe for untreated
municipal solid waste. In Annex C1.3 can be found the model’s snapshot for the
process.
4.3.3.9. Transportation of residuals from the Sorting facility to Vestforbrænding
Incineration plant
The transportation of the residuals coming out as byproduct from the Sorting facility
were assumed to be transported to the Incineration plant with the same type of truck
and the same consumption as used for the transportation of the sorted plastic (see
Chapter 4.3.3.5.). The length of the distance was set to be 20km according to Google
Map’s estimations. Snapshot of the transportation’s modeling is included in Annex
C1.3.
4.3.3.10. Rest of the processes
The description of the rest of the processes included in the Scenario 2 (‘’ Incineration
with energy recovery in Vestforbrænding plant’’, ‘’Transportation to the mineral
landfill’’ and ‘’Bottom ash landfill’’) can be found in the Chapters 4.3.2.2, 4.3.2.3,
4.3.2.4 respectively.
4.3.4. Scenario 3
The processes included in Scenario 3 were the same as in Scenario 2 with the only
exception of the Recycling process which in the present scenario, was enhanced with
additional steps of decontamination. The description of the rest of the processes and
the way they were modeled can be found in Chapter 4.3.3 in the respective
subchapters. The overview of the modeled processes is presented in Table 12 while
the depiction of scenario can be seen in Figure 7.
4.3.4.1. Reprocessing of PET
The PET Reprocessing process includes the mechanical recycling process, followed
by the supercleaning of the recycled flakes and the partly pelletizing of the
supercleaned flakes. The overview of the process is depicted in Figure 12 while the
actual processes used for the modeling are presented in Table 15 and Table 16.
Snapshots of the modeling of the process in EASETECH, are included in Annex C1.4.
56
PET-Reprocessing (Efficiency 76%)
PET Reprocessing process
Wastewater treatment
3.75 kg
Fresh water 1.5 kg
1kg PETFresh water 4.5 kg
NaOH 0.002 kg
Methane energy 1.9MJ
Electric energy 0.8
MJ
0.76 kg R-PET flakes
Scraps 0.24kg
Wastewater 4.5 kg
Treated water taken for
reuse 1.5kg
Untreated wastewater
0.75kg
Treated wastewater
3.75kg
No reused treated
wastewater 2.25kg
Flows (input and output)
Processes
Substitution
Reuse
Virgin PET0.67kg
Supercleaning (Efficiency 98%)
0.75 kg SCR-PET
flakes
Peletizing (Efficiency 96%)
0.166 kg SCR-PET pellets
0.72 kg SCR-PET
flakes
Figure 12: Flowchart of the ‘’PET Reprocessing’’ process
57
The modeling of the Mechanical Recycling process was performed as described in
Chapter 4.3.3.6 by using the same data with only exception the quality and quantity of
the substituted process (see Table 15).
The hot washed R-PET flakes consisting the output of the mechanical recycling
process were fed to the Supercleaning Unit for further decontamination. The data used
for the modeling of the Supercleaning process represent a current applied technology 25
since it was obtained by personal contact with the industry (Foil's Production
Industry, 2013). The output of the Supercleaning process is supercleaned flakes ready
to be used for food contact applications. However, for the production of the SC-foil
for food contact applications, a combination of supercleaned flakes (SCR-flakes) and
supercleaned pellets (SCR-pellets) needs to be inserted due to reprocessing reasons
(Foil's Production Industry, 2013). Thus, a part of the supercleaned flakes was taken
for pelletizing. The amount of flakes which was modeled to be pelletized (23%) was
calculated according to the foil production’s consistency requirements. The data used
for the pelletizing process were obtained from Shen et al. (2010).
Table 15: Recycling in Scenario 3
Name of used process Numerical info Type of use Database
Sodium hydroxide
(NaOH), RER, ELCD,
1996
0.002kg/kg input Consumption EASETECH
Water from
Waterworks,
Sweden,2008
4.5kg/kg in put Consumption EASETECH
Water from
Waterworks,
Sweden,2008
1.5kg/kg in put Substitution EASETECH
Electricity, production
mix GB, GB
0.224kWh/kg Consumption Ecoinvent
Natural gas in Industry
Burner (prod+comb),
>100Kq, 1996
1.9 MJ/kg Consumption EASETECH
Waste water treatment,
EU-27, ELCD, 2003
3.75 kg/kg input Consumption EASETECH
Polyethylene
terephthalate,
granulate, bottle grade,
at plant, RER
0.67kg/kg input Substitution Ecoinvent
Pelletizing 0.165 kg/kg input Consumption See Table 16
Super Cleaning of PET
flakes
0.76kg/kg input Consumption See Table 16
25
The studied foil’s production facility owns a Supercleaning reactor which is used for the conversion
of the non-food grade R-PET flakes to food grade material. The modeled data refer to the performance
of the above mentioned reactor.
58
Table 16: Modeling of Supercleaning and pelletizing process
Process Place Name of used process Numerical info Type of use
Super
Cleaning of
PET flakes
UK Electricity, production
mix GB, GB
0.12 kWh/kg
input
Consumption
Pelletizing UK Electricity, production
mix GB, GB
0.43kWh/kg Consumption
Natural gas in Industry
Burner (prod+comb),
>100Kq, 1996
0.24MJ/kg input Consumption
The efficiency of the supercleaning process is 98% (Foil's Production Industry, 2013).
Thus, the amount of R-PET which is send for supercleaning is 0.76kg/kg 26
of input.
The efficiency of the pelletizing process is 96% (Foil's Production Industry, 2013).
The modeled amount of pelletizing was 0.175kg/kg 27
input.
The substitution concerning the reprocessed PET of the present reprocessing process
differ both qualitatively and quantitatively compared to the one applied in the second
Scenario’s recycling. The output of the present process is a combination of
supercleaned flakes and pellets which are intended to be used for the production of
foil for food contact applications and following converted to new food packaging.
Thus, the process used for the virgin PET substitution was the same as used in the
upstream phase for substituting the virgin PET production.
The market substitution of the supercleaned recycled material is 90% as the
supercleaned foil consists of 10% virgin PET pellets and 90% supercleaned R-PET.
From the used R-PET, the 23% is coming from SCR-pellets and the 77% of SCR-
flakes (Foil's Production Industry, 2013). Thus, the technical substitution is 16.6% 28
for SCR-pellets and 58%29
for SCR-flakes ending to a total technical substitution of
74.6%. Taking all the above under consideration the substituted amount of virgin PET
for the process was 0.67 kg/kg 30
of input.
The substitution of the reused treated water was also modeled, in the present case,
following the same quality and quantity characteristics used in Chapter 4.3.3.6.
4.3.5. Scenario 4
The modeling of the scenario applies to the modeling of the reuse according to the
ILCD Handbook. The avoided production of plastic that occurs due to the reuse of the
packaging was taken under consideration during the modeling of the upstream
processes. Thus, in this part of the modeling no avoided production was needed to be
26
Since 0.76kg/kg of input is the output of the mechanical recycling process 27
0.76*0.98*0.23*0.96=0.165 28
0.23*0.96*0.75=0.166 29
0.75*0.77=0.58 30
0.90*0.746=0.67
59
credited. The modeling of the scenario’s washing processes included the
consumptions corresponding to 19 washes in order to reuse the packaging 20 times.
The following subchapters describe the washing processes met in Scenario 4. The rest
of the processes are the same as the ones met in Scenario 1, described in Chapter
4.3.2, since the reusable packaging is taken for incineration after the reuse of 20
times. Table 17 summarizes the processes used in the modeling of the scenario
combined with some basic information.
4.3.5.1. Manual dishwashing
The manual dishwashing of the reusable packaging was modeled in the same way as
described for the one-use packaging (see Chapter 4.3.3.2). The only difference
between the two processes is that in the present case, the consumption of water
applied for 19 of cleaning. The way of modeling was also the same, by referring to the
consumptions of 1kg of input; in the present case 1kg of input includes 7.2 reusable
packaging (see Annex C2.2). The snapshot of the process can be seen in Annex C1.5.
4.3.5.2. Automatic dishwashing
All the packaging which is brought back to the restaurant were washed in a
dishwasher, in order to be ready for the next use. It was assumed that one reusable
packaging was reused for 20 times based to the fact that a reusable bottle can be
returned and refilled for approximately 20 times according to Christensen &
Fruergaard (2011). Thus, the modeling of all the processes included in the Automatic
dishwashing process referred to the consumptions for 19 washes. More information
about the process’ modeling can be found in Annex C2.3 while the snapshots of
EASETECH depicting the different parts of the modeling can be seen in Annex C1.5.
The Automatic dishwashing process included the consumption of water, detergent,
cleanser, rinsing agent, electricity and the treatment of the effluent water. All the data
for the above consumptions were obtained from Stamminger et al. (2007) and
Presutto et al. (2007). The consistancy of the detergent and the rinsing agent used in
dishwashers was modeled according to Presutto et al. (2007) and is presented in Table
18 and Table 19 together with the modeled processes which were exported from
Ecoinvent database.
The removal of foodstaff during the washing process was modeled to be 76% based
on the cleaning efficiency of the Stamminger reference study’s results (Stamminger et
al., 2007) (see Annex C2.2.).
60
Table 17: Summary of processes used in the modeling of Scenario 4, together with basic information
Process -Location Name of used process Numerical info Type of use Database
Manual
dishwashing (Sc4)
DK Water from waterworks, Sweden, 2008 1170 kg/kg input Consumption EASETECH
Treatment, sewage, to wastewater treatment, class 2, CH 1.17 m3/kg input Consumption Ecoinvent
Automatic
dishwashing
DK Marginal Electricity Consumption incl. Fuel Production,
Coal, Energy Quality, DK, kWh, 2006
17 kWh/kg input Consumption EASETECH
Water from Waterworks, Sweden,2008 210 kg/kg in put Consumption EASETECH
Treatment, sewage, to wastewater treatment, class 2, CH 0.21 m3/kg input Consumption Ecoinvent
Detergent for dishwasher 0.34kg/kg input Consumption See Table 18
Rinsing agent for dishwashers 0.004kg/kg input Consumption See Table 19
Collection and
transportation
DK Collection vehicle, 10t EURO5, urban traffic, 1lt diesel,
2006
0.003 l/kg input Consumption EASEWASTE
Waste incineration DK Waste Incineration, generic, DK, 2012 Includes
substitution
EASETECH
Transportation to
mineral landfill
DK Transportation Vehicle, 25t Euro5, motorway, 1 liter
diesel, 2006’’
0.00003 l
diesel/kg/km
Consumption EASEWASTE
Bottom ash landfill DK Bottom ash landfill EASETECH
61
Table 18: Input data and processes used for the modeling of 1kg of detergent for dishwasher, source: Presutto et al., 2007
Name of process Numerical info Database
Sodium tripolyphosphate, at plant/RER 0.55kg/kg input Ecoinvent
Sodium perborate, monohydrate, powder, at plant/RER 0.06 kg/kg input Ecoinvent
EDTA, ethylenediaminetraacetic, at plant/RER 0.02 kg/kg input Ecoinvent
Sodium silicate, spray powder 80%, at plant/RER 0.05 kg/kg input Ecoinvent
Ethoxylated alcohols,unspecified, at plant/RER 0.02 kg/kg input Ecoinvent
Sodium percarbonate, powder, at plant/RER 0.3 kg/kg input Ecoinvent
Table 19: Input data and processes used for the modeling of 1kg of rinsing agent for dishwasher, source: Presutto et al., 2007
Name of process Numerical info Database
Ethoxylated alcohols,unspecified, at plant, RER 0.15 kg/kg input Ecoinvent
Cumene, at plant/RER 0.115 kg/kg input Ecoinvent
Acetic acid, 98% in H20, at plant/RER 0.03 kg/kg input Ecoinvent
Water,dionised, at plant/CH 0.705 kg/kg input Ecoinvent
62
5. Life Cycle Costing Inventory analysis
This Chapter presents the sources used for the implementation of the project’s
economic analysis and explains the calculations and the assumptions which led to the
final results. All the calculations were realized in Excel spread shits. Annex D2-D11
presents the detailed costing as estimated under the facilities’ point of view, while in
the following sections is mentioned the cost as considered under the present LCC’s
perspective. This LCC accounts all the costs through the product’s lifecycle from the
perspective of the consumer in the upstream phase and the perspective of the one who
pays the costs for the waste treatment.
When it comes to the economics, it is always difficult to obtain the precise data from
the industry mainly due to competitive reasons. The results of the present economic
study are an approximation of the real costs since the calculations were based on
prices from various sources. The above sources include personal contact with the
industry, personal contact with the Municipality of Copenhagen, various relevant
reports, industries’ websites and brochures, personal research in the Danish market
and assumptions.
For the evaluation of the capital costs, the payback time for the equipment and
vehicles was set to be 7 years with a rate of 7% according to Presutto et al. (2007).
Only exception to that is the life time of the collection truck which set to be 5 years
according to specific information obtained from the Municipally of Copenhagen
(2013). The respective time for the buildings set to be 15 years with the same rate
(Presutto et al., 2007).
According to Presutto et al. (2007) the maintenance and repairs of the equipment and
the trucks was set to be 5% of the respective annual capital cost, in case no specific
numbers could be found. The economic data broadly applied in the operational
costing of most of the processes (e.g. water, electricity, diesel, gas, salaries etc.) are
presented in Annex D1. The operational costs were mainly calculated according to the
consumptions of the LCA part of the study.
The end of life cost was assumed to be negligible compared to the other costs so it
was excluded from the study. The only exception concerns the life cycle costing of
the sanitary landfill. For this side it was considered that the end of life costs is
important to be considered since it is enclosed on the charged landfilling fee.
When no reference year was mentioned in the source of the data, it was assumed that
the information are also valid for the present year. It was also assumed that since
2009, the prices in the building sector and equipment’s prices stayed the same.
63
5.1. Upstream processes
The costing applying to the upstream processes was calculated for the actual
quantities used in each scenarios and not for the modeled ones31
. All the costs of the
upstream phase are enclosed in the costing of packaging production. This occurs
since the cost of the used foil which is included in the operational cost of the
packaging production, encloses the costs of the transportation and the foil production.
The cost of the production of the PET and its transportation to the foil production
facility is respectively already included in the cost of the foil. Thus, the cost that the
consumer pays in this phase is the one for buying the packaging.
The cost considered in the LCC is the revenues from packaging production facility’s
sales (31.4 DKK/kg packaging) since it depicts the price that the consumer has to pay.
Table 20 presents the costs considered in the LCC study for the upstream processses.
The costs depict the reality as they were obtained by the visiting to the industry’s
facility.
The estimated life cycle costing of the foil production and packaging production
facility’s together with the relevant assumptions can be found in Annex D2 and D3
respectively.
Table 20: Life cycle costing for packaging production under the consumer’s perspective, presented in an synoptic way
Costs DKK/kg of packaging produced
Costs 31.4
Revenue 0
Net cost 31.4
5.2 Disposal processes
The LCC estimations in the present phase, were implemented under the waste
treatment’s perspective, meaning that represent the money that have to be spend by
the municipality/consumer/waste management operator for the treatment of the waste.
The costs and the revenues of the recycling facility are also included in the LCC
althougt, there is not a gate fee to the facility in order to consider the economical
benefit of the process.
5.2.1. Collection
The combined collection and transportation process is met in all the scenarios and can
be divided in two different routes. In Scenario 2 and 3 the plastic waste is collected
from the restaurants and transported to the sorting facility while in Scenario 1 and 4 it
is transported to the incineration plant. Both routes take place in DK and are modeled
31
It is reminded, that in the modeling part, it was assessed the difference of the upstream processes
between the first three scenarios and scenario 4
64
with the same diesel consumption and the same type of truck (see Chapter 4.3.2.1.).
Based on the above, it was assumed that both routes cost the same.
The fee paied to the company which collects and transports the waste to the facilities
was considered revenue for the company but cost for the LCC study. The cost of the
fee paied for the collection and transportation of the waste to the incineration facility
is 1032 DKK/tn according to Municipality of Copenhagen (2013).
Table 21 depicts the costs and the revenues of the process under the LCC’s
perspective while the detailed calculation applied to the transportation company’s life
cycle costing are included in Annex D4.
Table 21: Life Cycle costing for waste collection, under the payers’ point of view
Costs DKK/kg transported
Costs 1.0
Revenues 0
Net cost 1.0
5.2.2. Transportation
As already described in Chapter 4, many different types of transportation take place
for the different scenarios. The transportation cost can vary according to the
distance’s length of the transportation distance and the types of mean used. The costs
are also different between the countries. Thus, in the present case three different type
of transportation were estimated: the transportation of the residuals of the recycling
process to landfill (UK), the residuals of the sorting facility to the incineration plant
(DK) and the combined transportation of the three means between the two countries
(UK-DK). The transportation of the bottom ash to the mineral landfill was assumed to
be included in the incineration fee, thus was not separately estimated.
Due to lack of information concerning the fee paid to the transportation company, it
was assumed that the paid fee for each transportation route is 2.4 times larger than the
transportation’s actual cost (under the company’s point of view) according to the
situation applied for the collection of the waste (Annex D4). Thus, this estimated fee
which is the company’s revenue, it represents the cost in the LCC, under the payer’s
perspective.
Concerning the life cycle costing of the road transportation companies, it was
estimated based on the assumptions and costs described in Annex D5. Concerning the
combined transportation of the three means (truck-ship-truck) between the two
countries, the calculation of its cost was estimated based on the difference between
the selling and buying foil's price from the studied companies, since it was assumed
that this difference occurs due to the enclosed transportation from UK to DK. It was
also assumed that the cost of transporting the foils from the FPF in UK to PPF in DK
65
is the same with transporting the sorted plastic from the Sorting facility in DK to the
Recycling facility in UK.
Table 22- Table 24 depicts the costs and the revenues of the transportation under the
LCC’s perspective while the detailed calculation applied to the transportation
company’s life cycle costing are included in Annex D5.
Table 22: Life cycle costing for Transportation of the residuals (coming from the Sorting facility) to the Incineration plant (DK) under the payers’ point of view
Costs DKK/kg
Total costs 0.56
Revenue 0
Net cost 0.56
Table 23: Life cycle costing for Transportation of the residuals (coming from the Recycling plant) to the landfill (UK) under the payers’ point of view
Costs DKK/kg
Total costs 0.56
Revenue 0
Net cost 0.56
Table 24: Transportation from UK to DK and vice versa under the payers’ point of view
Costs DKK/kg
Total costs 0.55
Revenue 0
Net revenue 0.55
5.2.3. Mechanical Recycling
The cost of sorted plastic, which actually includes the costs of the Sorting facility, is
enclosed in the costing of mechanical recycling process since it is included in the
operational cost of the recycling. The cost of the transportation of the sorted plastic to
the recycling facility was calculated separately as already explained in Chapter 5.2.2.
and it was not considered to be included in the purchase price of the sorted plastic,
paid by the recycling to the sorting facility. The estimated life cycle costing of the
Sorting facility together with the relevant assumptions can be found in Annex D6. In
the present case the facility’s LCC is identical with the waste management operator’s
perspective, assessed in the present study.
The cost estimation for the function of the Mechanical Recycling facility was based
on the assumptions and the investment costs of Axion Consulting (2009) refering to
the English reality. In the present analysis were considered only the machines and the
equipment beeing used for the recycling of PET and not for the rest types of plastic,
assessed in the reference report. The geographical scope of the data source fits which
66
the studied facility (UK). The capacity of the represented plant is the process of
80000t/y.
For the operational and maintenance costs it was assumed that all the sections of the
plant run on a 24 hour basis, for 7 days per week, manned with 3 shifts of operators.
The revenue of the recycling facility sources from the hot washed flakes sold to the
industries. The price used in the calculations was given by the Foil's Production
Industry (2013) and it is represenbtative for the English reality.
Table 25, presents the overview of the costs and revenues of the facility, while the
detailed calculations can be found in Annex D7. The minous in the net cost shows that
the facility makes profit.
Table 25: Life cycle costing for Recycling facility, presented in an synoptic way
Costs DKK/kg produced
1.Capital cost 0.2
2.Operational and maintenance costs 2.6
Revenues -7.5
Total costs 2.8
Net cost/ Net revenue -4.6
5.2.4. Mechanical Recycling followed by the supercleaning process and partly
pelletizing
The life cycle costing of this type of enhanced recycling process was calculated based
on the same data and the same assumptions considered in Chapter 5.2.3. Therefore,
the capital cost in the present process were the same as before, with the addition of the
Supercleaning reactor’s cost. The reactor’s cost was assumed to be the same as the
cost of ‘’Bale breaking and NIR/colour sorting section’’ due to lack of data.
Moreover, there are some differences in the operational and maintenance costs, since
they were calculated based on the input used for the modeling of the LCA part. Thus,
more energy is consumed in the present case due to the supercleaning and pelletizing
process. The repair and maintenance costs are also different since they are calculated
based on the capital cost.
The revenues come from the SCR-pellets and the SCR-flakes. The price used in the
revenue’s calculation was the one given by the Foil's Production Industry (2013),
corresponding to the SCR-pellets.
The detailed life cycle costing calculations of the process can be found in Annex D8.
Table 26, presents the overview of the estimated facility’ costing which is the same
with the waste management operator’s perspective, as in the previously mentioned
case (Chapter 5.2.3). The minous in the net/revenue cost shows that the facility makes
profit.
67
Table 26: Life cycle costing for the Recycling facility including supercleaning and pelletizing, presented in an synoptic way
Costs DKK/kg produced
1.Capital Costs 0.3
2.Operational and maintenance costs 2.6
Total costs 2.9
Revenues -8.4
Net cost/net revenue -5.5
5.2.5. Incineration in Vestforbrænding
Based on the fact that the Danish state-owned waste management companies are not
allowed to make profits, it was assumed that the net cost of the studied facility is the
incineration gate fee. The revenues in the present case come from the gate fee paid
and the energy production (heat and electricity). The incineration gate fee for the
Vestforbrænding Incineration is 90 DKK/ton (Municipality of Copenhagen, 2013).
The cost of the transportation of the bottom ash to the mineral landfill and the cost of
the bottom ash landfilling were assumed to be included in the paid incineration fee.
According to Dominic Hogg & Eunomia Research & Consulting, the bottom ash
landfilling in DK costs 0.25DKK/kg.
5.2.6. Landfilling in UK
The gate fee including the relevant taxes considered as net cost for the facility was set
to be 741.9DKK/ton according to the English data of WRAP (2012). The landfill tax
was set to be 560DKK/kg according to the same source (WRAP, 2012). The detailed
life cycle costing estimations for the facility can be found Annex D9.
5.2.7. Manual Dishwashing
The cost of the manual dishwashing was calculated based on the consumption of the
water modeled in the LCA part of the study. Additionally to that the estimation of the
life cycle costing of the process contained the used brush/sponge as a capital cost. The
price for the brush/sponge was estimated based on personal research on the Danish
market in July 2013 (see Annex D1.4.). It was assumed that one brush/sponge can
wash 200 items.
The cost of manual dishwashing is the same for both types of studied packaging;
reusable and one-use and it is presented in Table 27. There are no revenues in the
process and thus there is a net cost.
68
Table 27: Life cycle costing for the manual dishwashing washing process, presented in an synoptic way
Costs DKK/packaging DKK/1000
packaging
DKK/50
packaging
1.Capital cost 0.087 87 4.4
2.Operation costs 0.34 336 16.8
Total 0.42 423 21.2
Revenues 0 0 0
Net cost/Net Revenue 0.42 423 21.2
5.2.8. Automatic Dishwashing
The operational cost of the dishwasher was calculated based on the consumptions
used in the modeling of the respective process (Chapter 4.2.5.2). The cost of the
detergent and the rinsing agent was estimated based on personal research of the prices
applied in the Danish supermarkets in July 2013. The result of the research was
0.17DKK/washing and 1.15 DKK/washing for the rinsing agent and the detergent
respectively (see Annex D1.4).
The investment cost of the washing machine was estimated to be 4294DKK, based on
personal research to the Danish market in July 2013, concerning dishwashers of class
A+ (see Annex D1.4). The maintenance cost was assumed to be 37DKK/year
according to Presutto et al. (2007). For the estimation of the maintenance cost per
washing cycle, it was assumed that a machine performs 280 cycles/y (Presutto et al.,
2007). The present process considers no revenues. Table 28, presents the overview of
the costs.
Table 28: Life cycle Costing for the automatic washing process, presented in an synoptic way
Costs DKK/ packaging DKK/50packaging
1.Investment costs 0.12 6.2
2.Operational and maintenance costs 0.42 21.1
Total costs 0.54 27.3
Revenues 0 0
Net Revenues 0.54 27.3
5.3. Assessed Scenarios
The monetary costs of the scenarios were calculated based on the estimated costs of
the previously mentioned sections of the Chapter. The economic analysis of the study
followed as far as possible the same boundaries with the LCA part. Table 25 presents
the costing overview of the assessed scenarios.
69
Table 29: Life Cycle Costing of scenarios presented in a synoptic way
Costs (DKK) Revenues (DKK) Net cost/ net revenue (DKK)
Scenario 1 2241 0 2169
Scenario 2 2820 -294 2537
Scenario 3 2820 -328 -2504
Scenario 4 272 0 273
70
6. Results
The present chapter presents and discusses the environmental and economic
performances of the assessed scenarios. The characterized and normalized results are
presented in Annex E1 and E2 respectively while the costs included in each scenario
can be found in Annex F1-F5.
6.1 Environmental assessment
The environmental results were obtained by applying the ILCD Recommended
method in EASETECH software, 2.0.0 Internal Institute Version (July 2013). The
negative values represent savings while the positive ones represent loads.
The analysis of the environmental results begins with the presentation of the total
potential impacts in order to find out the general performance of the scenarios.
Following, the contributors of the impacts are presented in order to find out the
sources of the burdens and the savings in each impact category, in each scenario.
The composition of the impacts is consisted of 11 different source-contributors:
Bottom ash landfill, Manual dishwashing, PET reprocessing, Sanitary landfill, Sorting
facility, Waste incineration, Automatic dishwashing, Packaging production,
Production of virgin foil and Virgin PET pellets. The categories represent the
processes as described in Chapter 4 with only difference the ‘’Collection and
transportation’’ category which in the present Chapter includes the collection of waste
and all the types of transportation involving in the scenario. The PET Reprocessing
process refers to the two different types of recycling applied in scenario 2 and 3.
A deeper sight in the contributing sources is presented in Annex E3.2. where the most
loading and most saving process included in each source-contributor are mentioned.
For the source-contributors which contained only emissions, the main loading
substance contributor was spotted and presented in in Annex E3.1
In order to have a clearer and more precise overview of the results, they are divided
and presented in three groups: non-toxic impact categories, toxic impact categories
and depletion of abiotic resources. The results are reported in milli personal
equivalent per functional unit (mPE/ F.U.). The results presented in the main part of
the report are the normalized results for comparative reasons.
6.1.1. Non-toxic potential impact categories
Figure 13 depicts the net environmental impacts in non-toxic categories for all four
scenarios. It can be seen that all the scenarios contribute net burdens in all the
categories. Climate change is the impact category with the highest contributions while
Stratospheric ozone depletion is the category with the lowest. A more clear figure of
SOD can be seen in Annex E4.
71
Figure 13: Total net impacts in non-toxic impact categories
As a general outcome, it can be said that Scenario 4 is the least burdening scenario for
all but one impact category (FE), opposite to Scenario 2 which appears with the
largest burdens in four out of seven categories. Scenario 2 is followed by scenario 1
which burdens the most in two out of seven categories.
Between the two recycling scenario, Scenario 3 which combines the conventional
recycling with the supercleaning process appears to be the most environmental
friendly, in all the categories.
In Figure 14 is depicted the origin of the savings and the burdens met in each scenario
in the different impact categories. As a first conclusion from the graph it can be
mentioned that in most impact categories the largest burdens sourcing from the
‘’Virgin PET pellets’’ for Scenarios 1,2,3 and from ‘’Automatic dishwashing’’ for
Scenario 4. The main source of savings appears larger quantity variations depending
on the scenario and the assessed impact category. The savings origin from
‘’Packaging production’’, ‘’PET Reprocessing’’, ‘’Production of virgin foil’’ due to
the recycling of plastic linked to the avoided production of virgin plastic and from
‘’Waste Incineration’’ due to the production of electricity and heat.
Since the upstream production processes (production of foil, packaging production,
Virgin PET pellets) is common for scenario 1,2 and 3, every impact category that
appears contributions (savings or loads) sourcing from the above processes are
numerically equal for all three scenarios.
The difference between the savings of the ‘’PET Reprocess’’ between the two
recycling scenarios (Scenario 2 and 3), shows that the Virgin PET production
contributes with more loads to the environment than the production of virgin PP and
thus the substitution of virgin PET leads to more savings.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
CC SOD POF TA EP FE PM
mP
E/ F
.U.
Non-toxic impact categories
scenario 1scenario 2scenario 3scenario 4
72
Figure 14: Composition of impacts in non-toxic impact categories
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
sc1 sc2 sc3 sc4 sc1 sc2 sc3 sc4 sc1 sc2 sc3 sc4 sc1 sc2 sc3 sc4 sc1 sc2 sc3 sc4 sc1 sc2 sc3 sc4 sc1 sc2 sc3 sc4
Climate change Stratospheric ozonedepletion
Photochemicaloxidant formation
Terrestrialacidification
Eutrophicationpotential
Freshwatereutrophication
Particulate matter
mP
E/F.
U.
Composition of impacts in non-toxic impact categories
Automatic dishwashing Virgin PET pellets Production of virgin foil Packaging production
Waste Incineration, DK Sorting facility Sanitary landfill PET Reprocessing
Manual dish washing Collection and transportation Bottom ash landfill Total
73
6.1.1.1.Climate change
In the present impact category, Scenario 1 is the most loading contributive scenario
contrary to Scenario 4 which contributes with the least burdens. The main burdens for
the first three scenarios originate from the production of the Virgin PET pellets where
the carbon dioxide is the dominant substance-contributor. In Scenario 4 the automatic
dishwashing is the process with the largest burdens mainly due to the electricity
consumption.
Scenario 3 is the scenario which saves the most in the category. The greatest benefit
for Scenario 2 and 3 sources from the PET Reprocessing process due to the recycling
of plastic which is linked to the avoided production of virgin PP and PET
respectively. Scenario 3 has larger savings than Scenario 2 due to the different type of
plastic which substitutes. All the scenarios and especially Scenario 1, get benefited by
the incineration process mainly due to the electricity production. Savings in Scenarios
1,2,3 are also equally enhanced by the production of virgin foil due to the recycling of
postindustrial PET which is included in the process.
6.1.1.2. Stratospheric ozone depletion
The present category has negligible contributions compared with the rest of the non-
toxic categories. A more clear Figure of the category can be found in Annex E4, from
where it can be seen that Scenario 2 is the most loading scenario, opposite to Scenario
4 which is the least burdening scenario in the present impact category.
The dominant loading contributor for Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 is the Virgin PET pellets
production mainly due to air emission of methane, bromochlorodifluoro, Halon1211.
For Scenario 4 the main burden sources from automatic dishwashing due to the
detergent’s use.
Concerning the largest saving of the category, it appears to Scenario 3 sourcing
mainly from the PET Reprocessing process due to the avoided production of virgin
PET. For Scenario 1 and 2 the main saving-process is the production of virgin foil due
to the included recycling. Scenario 4 saves only from the incineration process mainly
due to the electricity production (Annex E3.2.1).
6.1.1.3.Freshwater eutrophication
Scenario 4 has a protagonist role in the present category as it includes emissions both
from manual and automatic dishwashing processes. Oppositely, Scenario 1 has the
least impacts in the category since no manual or automatic dishwashing is involved.
The main load-source in Scenario 4 is the automatic dishwashing mainly due to the
use of detergent (Annex E3.2.1). Contrary, Scenario 1 has the least contributions
among the scenarios, with Virgin PET production being the most loading process due
to the phosphide emitted in water compartments. The most burdening process for
scenario 2 and 3 is the manual dishwashing due to the wastewater treatment process
(Annex E3.2.1).
74
The category appears savings in the first three scenarios, with Scenario 2 saving the
most due to the Reprocessing process and the avoided production of virgin PP.
6.1.1.4.Other non-toxic categories
Since the rest of the categories are affected by the same sources, the trend of their
impacts is almost the same and thus they are discussed together.
In POF category the first scenario is the most burdening one, while in the rest three
categories Scenario 2 is the respective most loading scenario. For all the impact
categories, Scenario 4 is the most environmental friendly scenario.
In all four categories, the main source of impacts for the first three scenarios is the
production of virgin PET. NOx is the main substance-contributor of the extraction
process burdening in the EP and POF categories while the respective dominant
contributor in TA and PM categories is the SOx substance (Annex E3.1.). For
Scenario 4 the largest load in all the impact categories, comes from the automatic
dishwashing due to the electricity consumption.
For POF, TA and EP categories, the main saving-source process for Scenario 1 and 4
is the waste incineration due to electricity production in the first category and due to
heat production in the following two categories (Annex E3.2). For scenario 2 and 3
the processes of packaging production and PET Reprocessing respectively is the main
saving process, due to the avoided production of virgin PET in both cases.
The PM category follows the same saving course with the exception of Scenario 1
where the main saving process is the packaging production.
6.1.2. Toxic potential impact categories
Figure 15 depicts the net environmental impacts in toxic categories for all four
scenarios. It can be seen that all the scenarios contribute in total net burdens in all the
categories, as in the non-toxic impact cases.
Human toxicity, carcinogenic (HNC) is the category with the highest loads opposite
to Ecotoxicity, total category (ET). Scenario 2 burdens the most in all three categories
while Scenario 4 contributes the least in two out of three categories, followed by
Scenario 1. As can be seen from the graph, the impact categories where Scenario 4 is
the most environmental friendly scenario are the HTC and ET categories.
Figure 16 depicts the source-processes of savings and loads for each scenario for all
the toxic categories.
75
Figure 15: Total net impacts in toxic impact categories
As it can be observed from the graph, the dominant burdening process for Scenario 1,
2 and 3 is the production of virgin PET pellet process. Based on Annex E3.1 the main
contributive substance of the above process is Chromium released in water for HTC
category, emission of Zinc in air for HTNC category and Vanadium released in air for
ET category. For Scenario 4, the respective main loading process is either the
automatic dishwashing or the manual dishwashing depending on the assessed impact
category. For the HTC category the automatic dishwashing is the most contributive
process due to the use of detergent and mainly due to the released chromium in water.
For the other two toxic categories the manual dishwashing is the most burdening
process because of the wastewater treatment effects and mainly due to the Zinc which
is released in soil and in water respectively.
Figure 16: Composition of impacts in toxic impact categories
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
HTC HTNC ET
mP
E/ F
.U.
Toxic impact categories
scenario 1
scenario 2
scenario 3
scenario 4
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
sc1 sc2 sc3 sc4 sc1 sc2 sc3 sc4 sc1 sc2 sc3 sc4
HTC HTNC ET
mP
E/F.
U.
Composition of impacts in toxic impact categories
Automatic dishwashing Virgin PET pellets Production of virgin foilPackaging production Waste Incineration, DK Sorting facilitySanitary landfill PET Reprocessing Manual dish washingCollection and transportation Bottom ash landfill Total
76
Concerning the savings, all the above impact categories get mostly benefited by the
same processes. The basic saving-process in Scenario 1 and 2 is the packaging
production and in Scenario 3 is the PET Reprocessing process, where the benefits
come from the avoided emissions of virgin PET’s production. More precisely,
Scenario 1 and 2 gets mainly benefited in HTC category by the avoided releasing of
Chromium in the water, in HTNC by the avoided emission of Zinc to the air and in
ET by the avoided emission of Vanadium in air. Scenario 3 mainly saves in HTC and
ET categories grace to the avoided releasing of Chromium in water and in HTNC
grace to the avoided releasing of arsenic ion in water. Scenario 4 saves due to waste
incineration, sourcing mainly from the electricity production.
6.1.3. Resource depletion
Figure 17 depicts the net impacts of the resource depletion categories. Scenario 2 is
the most loading scenario in DAR category while Scenario 1 is the most burdening in
DARF category. Scenario 4 is the least burdening scenario in both categories.
Figure 18 represents the composition of the impacts of depletion resource categories.
In the DAR category, the main contributive process for the first three scenarios is the
Virgin PET pellets production especially due to the gold depletion which is related
with the process (Annex E3.1.). For Scenario 4 the main burdening source is the
Automatic dishwashing process mainly due to the use of detergent (see Annex
E3.2.3). The largest saving of the category comes from Scenario 3 mainly due to
‘’PET Reprocessing’’ sourcing from the avoided PET production. Scenario 4 has no
savings.
Figure 17: Total net impacts of depletion of abiotic resources
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Depletion of abiotic resources Depletion of abiotic resources, fossil
mP
E/ F
.U.
Depletion of abiotic resources scenario 1
scenario 2
scenario 3
scenario 4
77
Figure 18: Composition of impacts in depletion of resources
In the DARF category the most burdening scenario is the first one due to the Virgin
PET pellets’ production and basically due to the crude oil’s consumption. Scenario 2
and 3 have the same dominantly loiading process as Scenario1. Scenario 4’s most
burdening process is Automatic dishwashing, due to the electricity consumption. The
largest savings in the category come from Scenario 3, mainly due to avoided
production of Virgin PET pellets and the avoided consumption of crude oil.
6.2. Cost assessment
In accordance with the LCA part the positive values represent the costs while the
negative ones the revenues. The exact values of each scenario’s costing can be found
respectively in Annex F1-Annex F4.
Figure 19 depicts the net cost of each scenario. It can be observed that Scenario 2 is
the most costly scenario opposite to Scenario 4. Scenario 2 and 3 have a similar cost,
with Scenario 2 being 1.3% more expensive than Scenario 3. A large monetary
difference can be observed between Scenario 4 and the rest of the scenarios.
The composition of the net cost is visualized in Figure 20 separately for each scenario
in order to give a better overview of the origin of the costs. The composition of the
costs and the revenues is consisted of 7 different categories: Automatic dishwashing,
Manual dishwashing, PET reprocessing, Sanitary landfill, Waste incineration,
Packaging production, and Collection and transportation. The categories represent the
costing of the processes as described in Chapter 5, applying the same considerations
as in Chapter 6.1.
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
sc1 sc2 sc3 sc4 sc1 sc2 sc3 sc4
Depletion of abiotic resources Depletion of abiotic resources, fossil
mP
E/F.
U.
Composition of impacts in depletion of sources
Automatic dishwashing Virgin PET pellets Production of virgin foilPackaging production Waste Incineration, DK Sorting facilitySanitary landfill PET Reprocessing Manual dish washingCollection and transportation Bottom ash landfill Total
78
Figure 19: Net cost of the different scenarios
Based on the graph, it can be mentioned that the packaging production process is the
most costly process for all the Scenarios. Comparing the upstream (packaging
production) with the disposal phase it can be concluded that the first is much more
expensive phase. This conclusion also explains the large monetary difference between
the forth and the rest of the scenarios since the scenario of reuse needs less kilos of
produced packaging.
The slight monetary difference between Scenario 2 and 3 occurs mainly due to the
fact that the revenues from the recycling process are higher for Scenario 3 (Annex
F5). Comparing the cost of Scenario 1, Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 which apply to the
same amount of plastic waste, it can be concluded that incineration process is more
expensive than recycling, since the later gives back more revenues.
Figure 20: Life Cycle Costing of scenarios
2248
2537 2504
273
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
sc1 sc2 sc3 sc4
DK
K
Net cost of the Scenarios
2248 2537 2504
273
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
sc1 sc2 sc3 sc4
DK
K
Life Cycle Costing of Scenarios
Automatic dishwashing Sanitary LandfillPackaging production PET ReprocessingWaste Incineration Transportation and waste collectionManual dish washing Net cost
79
7. Sensitivity analysis
This part of the report assess the robustness of the study by spotting sensitive points
and evaluating the influence caused in the results by the change of these parameters.
The assumptions are changed one at a time. According to Clavreul et al. (2012) the
uncertainties met in LCA studies can refer to model uncertainties, scenario
uncertainties and parameter uncertainties.
In the present case two different points are assessed. The first sensitivity analysis
focuses on the forth scenario and how the environmental results are influenced by
reducing the times of packaging reuse to the half. The second analysis focuses on the
processes of the upstream phase and how the results get affected if it is considered
only the extraction of virgin raw material as upstream process.
7.1. Times of packaging reuse
As mentioned in Chapter 4.1 the assumption of the times that a packaging can be
reused was based on the situation applying for refillable bottles. In this part of the
report it is assessed the environmental performance of the scenario by reducing the
number of reuses to the half (10 times).
The change of the times of reuse depicts affects not only to the disposal phase of the
scenarios but also to the upstream phase. In the present situation, in order to serve
1000 meals in boxes that can be reused 10 times, 100 packages are needed and not 50
as in the main report’s case. Thus, the upstream phase, must include the production of
the extra amount of packaging used. In addition the washing processes of the assessed
scenario must apply to 9 times of washing leading to the 10 reuses. The amount of
plastic which is taken for incineration is correspondently larger. The modeling of the
upstream processes corresponding to the new scenario named Sens1.Sc4 applies to the
difference of used kilos between the two assessed scenarios, method which was
followed for the evaluation of the main scenarios. Thus the upstream processes of the
Sens1.Sc4 scenario correspond to the production of 6.9kg of packaging. The adjusted
consumption data used for the modeling of the washing phases can be found in Annex
G1.1.
Figure 21 depicts the difference of the environmental impacts between Sens1.Sc4 and
Scenario 4. As it can be observed in all the impact categories, Sens1.Sc4 contributes
more loads than Scenario 4 with only exception the FE category. In FE category,
Sens1.Sc4 burdens less than Scenario 4 mainly due to the smaller amount of detergent
used in the automatic dishwashing phase, since it corresponds to 9 washes and not to
19 as in the case of Scenario4. Concerning the rest of the impact categories,
Sens1.Sc4 has larger net burdens since it includes the extra loading impacts sourcing
of its enhanced upstream phase. It has to be remarked thought, that the washing
phases of Scenario 4 are more contributive than Sens1.Sc4’s, fact which is expected
due to the almost double amount of washes that occur.
80
Figure 21: Difference of the environmental impacts between Sens1.Sc4 and Scenario 4
The composition of the impacts for the two compared Scenarios, is illustrated in
Annex G1.2, separately for each group of impacts categories (non-toxic, toxic,
recourse depletion).
Figure 22 depicts the new scenario compared with the rest of the scenarios. As it can
be observed the reuse scenario remains the least contributive in most of the categories,
as performed in the previous case. The only difference in the performance of the
scenarios is spotted in HTC category where Scenario3 and Sens1Sc4 have a slight
difference favoring Scenario 3. Although, the ranking of the scenarios concerning
their environmental performance stays the same even if the times of reuse are reduced
to the half.
Figure 22: Comparison of the main scenarios with the Sens1.Sc4
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
CC SOD POF TA EP FE DAR HTC HTNC ET DARF PM
mP
E
Difference of the environmental impacts between Sens1.Sc4 and Scenario4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
CC SOD POF TA EP FE DAR HTC HTNC ET DARF PM
mP
E/Sc
en
ario
Comparison of main scenarios with Sens1.Sc4 scenario 1
scenario 2
scenario 3
sens1.sc4
81
7.2. Upstream processes
The upstream phase of the study included a number of processes starting from the
extraction of oil for the production of PET until the production of the assessed
packaging, considering also the transportation and the recycling of the postindustrial
PET (see Chapter 4.2).
The present sensitivity analysis assesses the alternative of modeling only the
production of virgin PET needed for the manufacturing of the assessed packaging
excluding the rest of the processes. Figure 23 depicts the numerical difference
between the environmental impacts sourcing of the pure extraction of virgin PET
(single-processed upstream phase (S-P)) and the group of processes (multiple-
processed upstream phase(M-P)). The comparison of the two phases and their
composition is visualized in Annex G2.
According to the graph multiple-processed upstream phase is more environmental
friendly in all the categories despite the fact that includes a number of extra processes.
The recycling of postindustrial PET which corresponds to the avoided production of
virgin PET is the saving parameter of the phase. This concept reassures that the virgin
extraction process is contributive for the environment and when avoided the credits
for the environment are considerable.
Figure 24 depicts the environmental performance of the scenarios in Sensitivity
analysis 2 in all the impact categories, in order to give an overview of the change’s
affects. The analytical visualization for each type of impact categories (toxic, non-
toxic, recourses) is included in Annex G2. It can be observed that the change of the
upstream processes did not affect the trend of the scenarios’ performance neither their
ranking. The same scenarios contribute the highest loads and savings in the same
impact categories as before. Thus, Scenario 4 remains the least burdening scenario,
followed by Scenario 3. The contributive performance of the other two scenarios
depends on the assessed impact category.
82
Figure 23: Difference of environmental impacts between the single and multiple processed upstream phases
Figure 24: Performance of the scenarios in all the impact categories under the change of Sensitivity 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
CC SOD POF TA EP FE DAR HTC HTNC ET DARF PM
mP
E
Diference of impacts between the single and multiple processed upstream phases
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
CC SOD POF TA EP FE DAR HTC HTNC ET DARF PM
mP
E/Se
ns.
Sce
nar
io
Environmental performance of Scenarios in Sensitivity 2
Sens2.Sc1Sens2.Sc2Sens2.Sc3Sens2.Sc4
83
8. Discussion
Uncertainties of the inventory
The importance of the accuracy of the data used in the set-up of the model is crucial
and fundamental for the results of an LCA. The inventory of the present study can be
divided in two parts; the inventory of the upstream packaging production and the
inventory of the waste management system.
The inventory of the upstream processes of the packaging production has few
uncertainties since the system was well defined by using site specific data obtained
directly from the involved facilities, applying to the reference year of the project.
However some critical parameters considered in the inventory of the reusable
packaging production are uncertain because it was not possible to find specific data
for reusable take-away food-packaging since it is not a presently applicable situation.
These parameters concern the times of reuse and the thickness of the packaging which
were based on the respective data applying for refillable bottles. Concerning the
uncertainty referring to the times of reuse, a sensitivity analysis was performed in
order to assess the robustness of the assumption. The analysis showed that the ranking
of the scenarios is not influenced even after reducing the times of reuse to the half.
Concerning the inventory of the waste management systems, the degree of uncertainty
is a bit higher for the scenarios where sorting and conventional recycling technology
is involved. The uncertainty refers to the data used for the modeling of these two
processes since they represent the Italian reality of 2003 and source from facilities
dealing with PET bottles. For the rest of the processes used in the waste management
scenarios the uncertainties are lower.
When it comes to the inventory of the economic part of the study, the uncertainty is
quite high due to the involved approximations and assumptions. The estimated costs
of recycling facility as well as the gate fee of landfill in UK do not apply to the actual
studied facilities but they were based on general data. The capital cost of the recycling
facility was based on costs found in other studies of relevant facilities and the
operational cost was estimated according to the input used in the environmental part
of the study, fact that includes uncertainties. On the other hand, the prices used for the
selling and purchasing materials were based on industries’ information or on personal
research in multiple type of sources.
Environmental results
The evaluation of the net environmental impacts showed that Scenario 4 performs in
the most environmental friendly way in all the impact categories with the exceptions
of FE and HTNC categories where Scenario 1 reacts in a better way. The above
results are in accordance with the waste hierarchy reassuring that reuse is the most
beneficial approach for the environment. The results of the first sensitivity analysis
also reassured that Scenario 4 is the less burdening scenario even if the times of reuse
84
are reduced to the half. The fact that Scenario 4 loads the most in FE category was
expected since it is the only scenario including the automatic washing process
involving detergent which is the main contributor in the category.
The worst environmental performance was realized mainly by Scenario 2 followed by
Scenario 1. More precisely, Scenario 2 contributes the most loads in 8 out of 12
impact categories (SOD, TA, EP, DAR, HTC, HTNC, ET, PM), Scenario 1 to three
out of 12 (CC, POF, DARF) and Scenario 4 to one impact category (FE).
Comparing the two scenarios which are related with the recycling process in the waste
treatment phase, Scenario 3 was assessed to be the most saving scenario. That has to
do with the type of virgin plastic which was substituted in the recycling process of the
waste treatment phase. In Scenario 2 the substituted plastic is PP while in Scenario 3
is bottle graded PET. That leads to the conclusion that virgin PET production is more
resource consuming than virgin PP production. In addition the fact that bottle graded
PET is used for the substitution and not amorphous PET enhances the numerically
obtained benefits, since the first mentioned type of PET is used for food contact
applications and depicts the clearest and purest form of PET.
The main contributor-process in Scenarios 1,2,3 for all the impact categories apart
from FE, is the production of virgin PET pellets originating from the upstream phase.
This relation reassures the resource demanding nature of the virgin PET production
process and reveals the important environmental benefits obtained due to avoided
production of virgin PET linked to the recycling process. The second sensitivity
analysis also focused on the importance of the recycling process leading to the above
conclusion concerning the loading nature of virgin process. For Scenario 4 the main
contributor process is the automatic dishwashing.
The savings of the scenarios originated from the ‘’PET reprocessing’’, ‘’packaging
production’’, ‘’foil production’’ and ‘’waste incineration’’ processes. In the first three
processes the savings source from the avoided production of virgin plastic which
substitutes the recycling process. In the waste incineration process the substitutions of
marginal electricity and heating are the reasons of the beneficial contribution.
The second sensitivity analysis showed that the multiple-processed upstream phase
which includes the benefits of the recycling is more environmental friendly in all the
categories compared with the single-processed phase that does not consider the
recycling’s benefits, despite the fact that includes a number of extra processes.
It has to be mentioned and reminded thought, that even in Scenario 4 there are actual
benefits and loads sourcing from the upstream processes. The reason for not being
depicted in the results of the study is the fact that it was considered the difference of
the upstream impacts between one-use and reusable packaging.
The results of the studied scenarios in total cannot be compared with literature
sources, since each scenario includes a combination of processes and phases. It can be
85
splitted thought in smaller parts in order to reassure the accuracy of the results
compared to the literature.
The overall conclusion of the study that the reuse approach is the most
environmentally beneficial approach is in accordance with a number of studies which
prove the importance of prevention and reuse (Singh et al., 2006; Levi et al., 2011;
Sanchez Martinez & Møller, 2011).
According to many literature studies such as Claus Mølgaard (1995), Arena et al.
(2003), Perugini et al. (2005), Lazarevic et al. (2010) the recycling process is favored
over incineration or other disposal methods. The present study showed that recycling
scenario is less loading than incineration scenario when the virgin substitution refers
to virgin PET plastic. In the case that the substitution refers to virgin PP plastic, in
most of the categories it is the incineration with energy recovery scenario which
burdens less. Thus the results of the present study are in accordance with Merrild et
al. (2012) where it was concluded that in some cases, incineration of plastic in
Denmark may be more beneficial than recycling.
Economic results
The evaluation of the economic results showed that the second scenario is the most
costly opposite to the forth one which is the less expensive. Scenario 2 and 3 were
assessed to have an almost identical estimated cost, with Scenario 2 costing 1.3%
more due to the lower revenues of the process. The large difference between the forth
and the rest of the scenarios is linked up to a great extent with the less amount of
plastic which is included in Scenario 4. It was also observed that the upstream costs of
all the scenarios are much higher than the disposal ones.
Comparing the cost of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 and 3 which apply to the same
amount of plastic waste, it can be concluded that incineration process is more
expensive than recycling, since the latter contributes more economical savings. This
conclusion is in accordance with Emery et al. (2006) and Larsen et al. (2009). The
process that mainly enhanced the cost of the recycling scenarios compared to the
incineration scenario is the manual dishwashing.
Combined LCA and LCC
The aim of combining the results of LCA and LCC studies applying to the same
system boundaries, is to obtain a more complete and realistic evaluation of the studied
system. The combination of those two approaches can be used as a useful supporting
decision tool. Table 30 presents the LCA and the LCC ranking starting from the most
beneficial option.
86
Table 30: Ranking of scenarios under the environmental (LCA) and the economic (LCC) perspective
LCA LCC
Most beneficial scenario
↓ ↓
Least beneficial scenario
Scenario 4 Scenario 4
Scenario 3 Scenario 1
Scenario 1 Scenario 3
Scenario 2 Scenario 2
In the present study, Scenario 4 appeared to be the best option combining by far the
most beneficial environmental and economic performance compared to all the
assessed scenarios.
Contrary, Scenario 2 appeared to be last in the ranking as it is the most
environmentally loading for most of the impact categories and at the same time the
most expensive scenario. The decision of ranking Scenario 2 in the last place of
preference is also enhanced by the market demand. According to Nielsen (2013), the
type of foil produced in Scenario 2 is not very commonly asked for packaging
applications due to the impurities that may contain32
, giving a non-appealing
appearance to the packaged product.
Concerning the rest two scenarios, Scenario 3 appeared to be environmentally less
burdening than Scenario 1 in all of the impact categories, but in the same time
Scenario 1 was assessed to be 10% less costly than Scenario 3.
32
The potential impurities that may be contained in the recycled material are correlated with the
cleaning steps followed in the recycling process applying in each facility
87
9. Conclusions
The present report aimed to evaluate the environmental and economic performance of
four waste management scenarios of take-away PET plastic food packaging. The first
three scenarios refer to an one-use packaging while the forth scenario refers to a
twenty timed reusable packaging. Due to the different quantitative composition of the
assessed packaging, the upstream phase of the packaging production had to be
modeled additionally to the disposal phase. The assessed waste management
alternatives of the packaging were the following: 1) incineration with energy recovery
in Denmark 2) conventional recycling in UK with the output applying to electronic
packaging 3) conventional recycling in UK followed by a super cleaning process with
the output applying to food packaging applications 4) reuse of the packaging 20 times
and disposal to incineration with energy recovery.
The environmental assessment was performed by using the EASETECH modeling
tool and refers to the evaluation of twelve impact categories. The environmental
impacts were expressed in milli person equivalent per functional unit (mPE/F.U.)
Most of the data used in the environmental assessment was obtained directly from the
relevant industrial facilities or from scientific articles. The processes used for the
modeling of the background processes were imported from Ecoinvent database,
EASEWASTE’s database or were included in EASETECH’s database.
The data used in the economic assessment was obtained directly from the above
mentioned industries, personal market reasearch and relevant reports and websides.
The evaluation of the potential environmental impacts reassured that reuse is by far
the most beneficial approach under an environmental perspective.
The environmental ranking of the scenarios starts with Scenario 4 as the most
beneficial option, followed by Scenario 3, Scenario 1 and finally Scenario 2. The
implementation of two sensitivity analysis showed that the scenario’s environmental
ranking stays the same a) in the case that the times of packaging’s reuse in the
Scenario 4 are reduced to the half and b) in the case that the upstream phase includes
only the virgin PET production.
The second sensitivity analysis also showed that the multiple-processed upstream
phase which includes the benefits of the recycling is more environmental friendly in
all the categories compared with the single-processed phase that does not consider the
recycling’s benefits, despite the fact that includes a number of extra processes.
Comparing the two scenarios involving the recycling process in their disposal phase,
Scenario 3 appeared to be the most beneficial scenario. The above outcome also led to
an additional verification that virgin PET production is more resource consuming than
virgin PP extraction.
88
The process of virgin PET production originating from the upstream phase was the
main burdening process for Scenarios 1,2,3 for all the impact categories apart from
FE category. For scenario 4 the main loading process was the automatic dishwashing.
The evaluation of the economic results showed that Scenario 2 is the most expensive
option opposite to Scenario 4 which is the least costly option. Scenario 2 and 3 were
assessed to cost approximately the same. It was also concluded that incineration
process is more expensive than recycling process.
The combination of LCA and LCC results, showed that Scenario 4 represents the best
option among all the assessed scenarios while Scenario 2 is the least preferable
option. The most costly process for all the Scenarios appeared to be the packaging
production process, fact that explains the large monetary difference between the
Scenario 4 and the rest of the scenarios. It was also concluded that the production
phase costs much more than the disposal phase.
89
10. Future work suggestions and study improvement
The current report represents a first approach of the environmental and economic
assessment of take-way PET food packaging. In accordance with the discussion
phase, the present Chapter proposes suggestions for the improvement of the present
study, as well as recommendations and ideas for future LCA studies.
To begin with, the assumptions which were considered in the course of the project
could be spotted and reexamined based on more accurate data, in order to obtain more
powerful and updated results.
The first spotted points for further assessment can be considered the thickness of the
reusable packaging as well as the times of reuse. Tests can be realized in order to
evaluate the performance of different thicknesses. In addition, tests can take place, in
order to assess the resistance of the packaging under different conditions of treatment.
These types of tests can be used supplementary to each other in order to find the
desired correlation of resistance and thickness. The other simpler option for assessing
the different packaging thicknesses would be to apply additional sensitivity analysis
concerning that factor. The sensitivity referring to the times of reuse is already
existent in the project.
A second uncertain point of the project which could be reevaluated is the recycling
technology applied in the current project. The acquisition of more recent data,
applying to the English reality would give a more representative perspective of the
modeled situation.
Additionally, a potential economic assessment performed with data coming directly of
the involved recycling facility would give a more robust and reliable economic
approach.
A more representative perspective of the reusable scenario could be obtained if losses
were taken under consideration. The material losses can source either from damages
occurring in the reusable products or from products that were not returned to the
restaurant and stayed out of the loop.
It would also be interesting to compare respective scenarios using as raw material bio
plastics in order to evaluate the different performance of the plastics.
Finally, a socio-perspective research concerning the willingness and the openness of
the people to enhance and participate to a bringing back system of reusable take-away
food packaging, could complete the present study. This is a crucial point since the
functionality and the success of the report’s project is based on the people’s
participation. Thus, a potential deny of participation to the system could lead to the
opposite of the plastic waste prevention result and accumulate more plastic in the
dustbins considering that the reusable packaging weights more.
90
References
Arena, U., Mastellone, M. L. & Perugini, F., 2003. Life Cycle Assessment of a Plastic Packaging
Recycling System. Int J LCA, pp. 92-98.
ARGUS, ACR AS & Carl Bro AS, 2001. European Packaging Waste Management Systems-Main
Report, s.l.: European Commission.
Axion Consulting, 2009. Financial modelling and assessment of mixed plastics separation and
reprocessing on a commercial scale in the UK, Banbury, Oxon: wrap.
Biener, J., Japutra, C. & Morales , M., 2013. ENHANCING PLASTIC RECYCLING FROM DANISH
HOUSEHOLDS, s.l.: s.n.
bio Intelligence Servise, 2011. European Commission (DG ENV) Plastic waste in the
environment-Final Report, s.l.: s.n.
Bjorklund, A., Finnveden , G. & Roth , L., 2011. Application of LCA in Waste Management. In:
Solid Waste Technology & Management. s.l.:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Chilton, T., Burnley, S. & Nesaratnam, S., 2010. A life cycle assessment of the closed-loop
recycling and thermal recovery of post-consumer PET. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, pp. 1241-1249.
Christensen, T. H. & Fruergaard, T., 2011. 5.3 Recycling of Plastic. In: Solid Waste Technology
and Management. s.l.:John Wiley & Sons.
Christensen, T. H., Simion, F., Tonini, D. & Møller, J., 2011. 3.3 LCA Modeling of Waste
Management Scenarios. In: Solid Waste Technology & Management. s.l.:Blackwell
Publishing.
Clavreul, J., Guyonnet, D. & Christensen, T., 2012. Quantifying uncertainty in LCA-modelling
of waste management systems. Waste Management, Augoust, pp. 2482-2495.
Danskreturnsystem, 2013. [Interview] (13 May 2013).
Danskreturnsystem, n.d. Danskretursystem >About Dansk Returnsystem. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dansk-retursystem.dk/content/us/about_dansk_retursystem
[Accessed 2 September 2013].
Danskreturnsystem, n.d. Danskretursystem> Importers and products> Registration of
packaging. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dansk-
retursystem.dk/content/us/importers_and_producers/registration_of_packaging
[Accessed 2 September 2013].
Danskreturnsystem, n.d. Danskretursystem> Packaging flow< Return percentage. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dansk-
91
retursystem.dk/content/us/packaging_flow/return_percentage
[Accessed 2 September 2013].
Danskreturnsystem, n.d. Danskretursystem> Welcome to Dansk Returnsystem A/S. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dansk-retursystem.dk/content/us
[Accessed 2 September 2013].
Danskreturnsystem, n.d. Danskretursystem>The Danish system >Areas covered. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dansk-
retursystem.dk/content/us/the_danish_system/areas_covered
[Accessed 2 September 2013].
Danskretursystem (f), n.d. danskretursystem>About Dansk Retursystem>Finances. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dansk-
retursystem.dk/content/us/about_dansk_retursystem/finances
[Accessed September 2013].
Delgado, C., Barruetabena, . L. & Salas, O., 2007. Assessment of the Environmental
Advantages and Drawbacks of Existing and Emerging Polymers Recovery Processes, s.l.: JRC
EUROPEAN COMMISSION.
Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2012. QUARTERLY ENERGY PRICES, s.l.: National
Statistics Publication.
Doka, G., 2003. Life Cycle Inventories of Waste Treatment Services.ecoinvent report No. 13,
Dübendorf: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.
Dominic Hogg, Eunomia Research & Consulting, n.d. Costs for Municipal Waste Management
in the EU, s.l.: Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd.
Donplast A/S, n.d. [Online]
Available at: http://www.donplast.dk/profil.php
[Accessed July 2013].
Dvorak, R., Kosior, E. & Moody, L., 2011. Development of NIR Detectable Black Plastic
Packaging, Banbury, Oxon: WRAP.
EASETECH course 7-25 January 2013, 2013. Exercise 1: Waste generation, waste
composition, source separation and collection. Kgs. Lyngby: DTU Environment.
EASETECH course 7-25 January 2013, 2013. Exercise3: Thermal Treatment. Kgs. Lyngby: DTU
Environment.
Emery A, D. A. G. A. W. K., 2007. Environmental and economic modelling: A case study of
municipal solid waste management scenarios in Wales. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling , pp. 244-263.
92
Emery, A., Davies, A., Griffiths, A. & Williams, K., 2007. Environmental and economic
modelling: A case study of municipal solid waste management scenarios in Wales.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, pp. 244-263.
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency, Last updated 9/9/13. EPA United States
Environmental Protection Agency>Climate Change> Overview of Greenhouse Gases>
Methane Emissios. [Online]
Available at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html
[Accessed 20 September 2013].
Europa, 2012. EUROPA>Summaries of EU legislation>Consumers>Product labelling and
packaging. [Online]
Available at:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/product_labelling_and_packaging/sa00
28_en.htm.
[Accessed 23 April 2013].
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, s.l.: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission-Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability,
2011. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook: Recommendations
for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context, lUXEMBOURG: Office of the
European Union.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2013. GREEN PAPER on a European Strategy on Plastic Waste in
the Environment, Brussels: EUROPEAN COMMISSION.
European Commission, 2010. European Commission> Environment>Waste. [Online]
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/packaging_index.htm
[Accessed 23 April 2013].
European Commission, 2012. European Commission>Environment>Waste>Framework
Directive. [Online]
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/
[Accessed 23 April 2013].
European Commission, n.d. EUROPA>European Commission> DG Health and
Consumers>Overview> Food and Feed Safety. [Online]
Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/foodcontact/framework_en.htm
[Accessed 23 April 2013].
European Federation of Waste Management and Environmental Services (FEAD), 2008.
Legislation overview> Summary of the Directive> Waste Framework Directive (WFD). [Online]
Available at: http://www.fead.be/en/legislative-overview/waste-framework-directive-
93
2/summary-of-the-directive/
[Accessed 30 Augoust 2013].
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2011. Scientific Opinion on the criteria to be used
for safety evaluation of a machanical recycling process to produce recycled PET intended to
be used for manufacture of materials and articles in contact with food. EFSA Journal, p.
2184.
Eurostat, 2013. Packaging waste statistics. [Online]
Available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Packaging_waste_statistic
s#Plastics
[Accessed 15 Augoust 2013].
Foil Production Industry, n.d. Company's Brochure, s.l.: s.n.
Foil's Production Industry, 2013. [Interview] (May 2013).
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2006. Guidance for Industry: Use of Recycled Plastics in
Food Packaging: Chemistry Considerations. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/
IngredientsAdditivesGRASPackaging/ucm120762.htm
[Accessed March 2013].
Foolmaun, R. K. & Ramjeawon, T., 2013. Life cycle sustainability assessments (LCSA) of four
disposal scenarios for used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Environ
Dev Sustain, 27 October, pp. 783-806.
Foolmaun, R. K. & Ramjeewon, T., 2012. Comparative life cycle assessment and life cycle
costing of four disposal scenarios for used polyethylene terephthalate bottles in Mauritius.
Environmental Technology, 7 February, pp. Vol. 33, No. 17, 2007-2018.
Franz, R., Bayer , F. & Welle, F., 2003. EU-Project FAIR-CT98-4318 ''Recyclability'' Guide to
safe PCR-PET, Brussels: European Communities.
Fruergaard, T. H. C. a. T., 2010. Recycling of Plastic. In: Solid Waste Technology and
Management. s.l.:John Wiley & Sons.
Fuel-prices-europe.info, 2013. Fuel-prices-europe.info. [Online]
Available at: http://www.fuel-prices-europe.info/
[Accessed 17 July 2013].
Gaard, J., 2013. [Interview] (8 April 2013).
Gilleßen, C., Berkholz, P. & Stamminger, R., 2013. Manual dishwashing process – a pre-
assigned behaviour?. International Journal of Consumer Studies, pp. 37: 286-290.
94
Glenn Elert and his students, 2006, 2008. Energy Density of Diesel Fuel. [Online]
Available at: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/TatyanaNektalova.shtml
[Accessed 2013].
Google Maps, 2013. Google Maps. [Online]
Available at: https://maps.google.gr/
[Accessed June 2013].
Hauschild, M. Z. & Barlaz, M. A., 2011. 3.1 LCA in Waste Management: Introduction to
Principle and Method. In: Solid Waste Technology & Management. s.l.:Blackwell Publishing
Ltd.
HOFOR, 2013. Forside › Vand › Priser på vand 2013 › Priser på vand i København 2013.
[Online]
Available at: http://www.hofor.dk/vand/priser-pa-vand-2013/priser-pa-vand-i-kobenhavn/
[Accessed July 2013].
Hogg, D. & Eunomia Research & Consulting, n.d. Costs for Municipal Waste Management in
the EU, s.l.: Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd..
Humbert, S. et al., 2009. Life cycle assessment of two baby food packaging alternatives: glass
jars vs. plastic pots. Int J Life Cycle Assess, pp. 95-106.
International Standardization Organization, 2006. Environmental Management - Life Cycle
Assessment - Principle and Framework (ISO 14040:2006) , s.l.: International Standard.
International Standardization Organization, 2006. Environmental management-Life cycle
assessment- Requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044), s.l.: International Standards.
Kirwan, M. J. & Strawbridge, J. W., 2011. 7 Plastics in food packaging. In: Food and Beverage
Packaging Technology. s.l.:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Krüger, M., Kauertz, B. & Detzel, A., 2009. Life Cycle Assessment of food packaging made of
IngeoTM bio biopolymer, Heidelberg: s.n.
Larsen, A., Merrild, H. & Christensen, T., 2010. Waste collection systems for recyclables: An
environmental and economic assessment for the municipality of Aarhus (Denmark). Waste
Management, pp. 744-754.
Larsen, A. W. & Skovgaard, M., 2012. ZERO, Plastic Action 1.2 Report on waste plastic in
Copenhagen, s.l.: s.n.
Lazarevic, D., Aoustin, E., Buclet, N. & Brandt, N., 1010. Plastic waste management in the
context of a European recycling society: Comparing results and uncertainties in a life cycle
perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, pp. 246-259.
Levi, M., Cortesi, S., Vezzoli, C. & Salvia, G., 2011. A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of
Disposable and Reusable Packaging for the Distribution of Italian Fruit and Vegetables.
PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, 19 July, pp. 387-400.
95
Madival, S., Auras, R., Singh, S. P. & Narayan, R., 2009. Assessment of the environmental
profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell containers using LCA methodology. Journal of Cleaner
Production, pp. 1183-1194.
Marvin, J., 2012. Industrial energy prices , s.l.: s.n.
Merrild, H. & Christensen, . T. H., 2011. 1.3 Introduction to Waste Economics. In: Solid Waste
Technology & Management. s.l.:Blackwell Publishing Ltd..
Merrild, H., Larsen, A. W. & Christensen, T. H., 2012. Assessing recycling versus incineration
of key materials in municipal waste:The importance of efficient energy recovery and
transport distances. Waste Management, pp. 1009-1018.
Molgaard, C., 1995. Environmental impacts by disposal of plastic from municipal solid waste.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, pp. 51-63.
Mollenborg, 2008. Molenborg>kWh Priser. [Online]
Available at: http://mollenborg.dk/kwhpriser.php
[Accessed July 2013].
Municipality of Copenhagen, 2013. [Interview] (15 May 2013).
NARCIS, n.d. RESEARCH RECYCLABILITY (EU-PROJECT FAIR-CT98-4318). [Online]
Available at: http://www.narcis.nl/research/RecordID/OND1272035/Language/en
[Accessed 3 September 2013].
Nielsen, N., 2013. Visit to Donplast A/S [Interview] (24 April 2013).
Perugini, F., Mastellone, M. L. & Arena , U., 2005. A Life Cycle Assessment of Mechanical and
Feedstock Recycling Options for Management of Plastic Packaging Wastes. Wiley
InterScience, 11 April, pp. Vol.24, No.2.
Plastic ZERO, n.d. [Online]
Available at: http://www.plastic-zero.com/media/4186/short_project_description.pdf
[Accessed 13 April 2013].
PlasticsEurope(a), 2012. Plastics-the Facts 2012 An analysis of European plastics
production,demand and waste data for 2011, Brussels-Belgium: PlasticsEurope.
PlasticsEurope(b), 2012. Plastic Packaging: Born to protect, Brussels Belgium: PlasticsEurope.
PlasticsEurope, 2008. Environmental Product Declarations of the European Plastics
Manufacturers Poly-ethyleneterephthalate (PET) Amorphous. Brussels-Belgium: s.n.
PlasticsEurope, 2012. Plastics-the Facts 2012 An analysis of European plastics
production,demand and waste data for 2011, Brussels-Belgium: PlasticsEurope.
Presutto, M. et al., 2007. Preparatory Studies for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs, LOT
14:Domestic Washing Machines & Dishwashers, Final Report, Tasks 3-5, s.l.: s.n.
96
Reed, J., 2013. reed.co.uk>The UK's #1 job site> Average UK salaries. [Online]
Available at: http://www.reed.co.uk/average-salary
[Accessed 2013].
Reich, M. C., 2005. Economic assessment of municipal waste management systems-case
studies using a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC).
Journal of Cleaner Production, pp. 253-263.
Ren, H., 2012. Master Thesis- Plastic Waste Recycling and Greenhouse Gas Reduction,
Denmark: s.n.
Sanchez Martinez, V. & Møller, J., 2011. LCA on the prevention of unsolicited mail in the
Vestforbrænding municipalities., Kgs. Lyngby: DTU Environment.
Schmidt, J. et al., 2005. Results and Experiences from Combined LCA and Economical
Assessment of New Collection Scheme in the City of Copenhagen, s.l.: s.n.
Shen, L., Nieuwlaar, E., Worrell, E. & Patel, M. K., 2011. Life cycle energy and GHG emissions
of PET recycling: change-oriented effects. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 20 May , pp. 522-536.
Shen, L., Worrell, E. & Patel, M. K., 2010. Open-loop recycling: A LCA case study of PET
bottle-to-fibre recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, pp. 34-52.
Singh, S. P., Chonhenchob, V. & Singh, J., 2006. Life Cycle Inventory and Analysis of Re-usable
Plastic Containers and Display-ready Corrugated Containers Used for Packaging Fresh Fruits
and Vegetables. PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, 19 April, pp. 279-293.
Slater, B., 2009. Recycling collections-source separated or commingled?, London: Friends of
the Earth.
Stamminger, R., Elschenbroich, A., Rummler, B. & Broil, G., 2007. Washing-up Behaviour and
Techniques in Europe, Bonn: s.n.
Statistics Denmark, 2013. STATISTICS DENMARK>SLON21: Earnings by occupation, sector,
salary, salary earners, components and sex. [Online]
Available at: http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp
[Accessed July 2013].
The environment Agency, 2013. Waste management 2011>Key facts. [Online]
Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/data/142511.aspx
[Accessed June 2013].
Welle, F., 2005. Wrap Develop a food grade HDPE recycling process, s.l.: The waste &
Resources Action Programme.
Welle, F., 2011. Twenty years of PET bottle to bottle recycling-An overview. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 55 , 23 April, pp. 865-875.
97
Wellenreuther, F., Von Falkenstein, E. & Detzel, A., 2012. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment
of beverage cartons combiblocSlimline and combiblocSlimline EcoPlus for UHT milk,
Heidelberg: s.n.
Wood, G. & Sturges of Edge, M., 2010. Final report: Reusable Packaging - Factors to Consider
Single Trip or Reusable Packaging - Considering the Right Choice for the Environment, s.l.:
Wrap.
WRAP, 2012. Gate Fees Report, 2012. Comparing the cost of alternative waste treatment
options, s.l.: WRAP.
Zabaniotou, A. & Kassidi, E., 2003. Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging made from
polystyrene and recycled paper. Journal of Cleaner Production, pp. 549-559.
98
ANNEXES
Annex A : Background information
A1 Graphs
Figure 25: Rate of plastic packaging waste treatment by country-member, 2007 (%), source: bio Intelligence Servise, 2011
Figure 26: Recycling rate for plastic packaging, 2010, Source: Eurostat, 2013
99
A2 Applied PET supercleaning processes
Figure 27: PET supercleaning processes based on pellets, source: (Welle, 2011)
Figure 28: Two schemes of Supercleaning recycling process based on decondamination of PET flakes, source: Welle, 2011
100
Figure 29: PET supercleaning based on partial depolymerisation to oligomers, source: Welle, 2011
101
A3 Impact categories and waste management
Non-toxic categories
In the waste management field, photochemical oxidation (POF) is mainly affected
from the emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) caused by the incineration and the waste
collection and transportation processes and by the volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) emitted from the landfills (Hauschild & Barlaz, 2011). Eutrophication-
potential (EP) category referring to solid waste treatment, is affected by ammonia and
NOx which are also emitted by the above relevant sources (Hauschild & Barlaz,
2011). In addition, emissions of NOx, ammonia and sulfur oxides (SOx) which
contribute to the terrestrial acidification (TA) are emitted by transport processes and
generally processes where diesel combustion is involved. Particulate matter 33
(PM) is
also formed by the combustion of fossil fuels in vehicles and engines. Climate change
is affected by the greenhouse gases where carbon oxide (CO2) which is the most
popular of the greenhouse gases, is formed by the combustion of fossil fuels.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and bromine-
containing halons are the most common manmade gases which contribute to
stratospheric ozone depletion (Hauschild & Barlaz, 2011).Freshwater eutrophication
category refers to the impacts caused by phosphorous emissions. A common source of
phosphorous which is met in waste studies, is the waste water treatment plants.
Toxic categories
Human beings are exposed to thousands of substances which potentially can exert
human toxicity. In the field of waste treatment, the most important exposures come
from the waste incineration’s and transportation’s emitted particles as well as from the
exposure to toxic metals and persistent organic pollutants (e.g. dioxins, furans)
(Hauschild & Barlaz, 2011). Ecosystems can also be toxically damaged by the toxic
metals and persistent organic pollutants. Thus, the toxic categories assess the
ecotoxicity in total (including effects on both ecosystems and human health) and also
focuses in two different types of human toxicity (carcinogenic and non).
Recourse depletion
The recourse depletion category, refers to the impacts that occur to the abiotic
resources, divided in two categories; fossil and non. The depletion of abiotic
resources, fossil category (DARF) refers to the consumption of fossil fuels while the
other category includes the rest of the abiotic resources (e.g. minerals).
33
Particulate matter is a synthesis of very small solid and liquid particles polluting the atmosphere
102
Annex B: Upstream Processes
B1 EASETECH’s snapshots
Figure 30: Snapshot of EASETECH depicting the upstream processes
B1.1 Virgin PET flow
Figure 31: Snapshot of EASETECH, depicting the modeling of the virgin PET flow
B1.2 Foil production
Figure 32: Snapshot of EASETECH, depicting the modeling of the foil production process
B1.3 Transportation from UK to DK and vice versa
Figure 33: Snapshot of EASETECH, depicting the modeling of the transportation process from UK to DK and vice versa
103
B1.4 Packaging production
Figure 34: Snapshot of EASETECH, depicting the modeling of the packaging production process
B2 Data and calculations
B2.1 Differences between the different types of PET
Table 31: Differences between the different types of PET, source: (Foil's Production Industry, 2013)
Type of PET Grade Intrinsic Viscosity (IV)
Virgin pellets Bottle grade 0.8
R- PET flakes Hot washed
(no food grade)
0.70-0.74
Super cleaned flakes Food grade
R-PET pellets Food grade 0.82 (as virgin)
B2.2 Foil production Table 32: Data concerning the production of 1kg of virgin foil (Foil's Production Industry, 2013)
General information
Application: food contact Type of input: 100% virgin pellets
Grade: bottle grade Thickness: 0.3-0.6 mm
IV: 0.8IV Process’ efficiency: 83%
Input
Electricity consumption per kilo of produced foil 0.406 KWh/kg
Input of virgin pellets per kilo of produced foil 1.2 kg/kg
Input of anti-block additives per kilo of produced foil 0.0024 kg/kg
Output
Scraps taken for recycling per kilo of produced foil 0.2 kg
Virgin PET foil 1 kg
Economic data
Selling price 1.96 €/kg
104
B2.3 Packaging production
B2.3.1 Visit to the packaging production facility (Donplast A/S)
Pictures of the facility and the followed processes
Figure 35: Roles of foil used for the production of the packaging
Figure 36: Forming tools
A B
Figure 37: A: Production line of the facility B: Product coming out of the thermoforming machine
105
A B
Figure 38: A: The produced packaging placed in boxes B: The cut foil turned around a cylinder
Figure 39: Cut foils separated by color in containers in order to be shipped back to UK for recycling
Figure 40: Grinding the cut foil separately for each color, before to transport them back to UK
Forming tools and Workshop
‘’Forming tools’’ are used in order to give to the foil the desired shape. The company
has 500 forming tools half of which are formed in the company’s workshop.
Workshop they call the part of the company where they create new forming tools and
maintain the existing ones. Figure 36 depicts some of them.
106
It is possible for the company to make changes to the forming tools that have been
created by them, since they have the drawings. It takes weeks to build one forming
tool considering that the steps before the final production are: design - pilot scale - try.
Most of the times, the design of the product is designed by the Donplast itself
involving the client’s wishes. In the Sticks’n sushi case, the design of the packaging
did not involve Donplast and that is the reason why an agreement was signed,
forbidding the company to produce the particular packaging for any other application.
B2.4 Actual amounts of upstream processes
Table 33: Amounts applying to the upstream processes
Scenario 1,2,3 (kg) Scenario 4 (kg)
Virgin PET input 130 13.0
Amount of produced foil 107.8 10.8
Amount of transported foil 107.8 10.8
Amount of produced packaging 69 6.9
Amount of cut foil 38.8 3.9
107
Annex C: Disposal Processes
C1 EASETECH’s snapshots
C1.1 Waste flow
Figure 41: EASETECH’s snapshot depicting the modeling of the input waste flow for scenario 1,2,3.
Figure 42: EASETECH’s snapshot depicting the modeling of the input waste flow for scenario 4.
C1.2 Scenario 1
Figure 43: Snapshot of EASETECH depicting the modeling of Scenario 1
108
Figure 44: Snapshot of EASETECH, depicting the modeling of the collection and transportation process
Figure 45: Snapshot of EASETECH, depicting the processes included in the ‘’ Waste to energy , generic, Denmark, 2012’’ process
Figure 46: Snapshot of EASETECH, depicting the process used for the transportation of the Bottom ash to the landfill
Figure 47: Snapshot of EASETECH, depicting the processes included in the ‘’Bottom ash landfill’’ process
109
C1.3 Scenario 2
Figure 48: Snapshot of EASETECH depicting the modeled processes of Scenario 2
Figure 49: Snapshot of EASETECH, depicting the processes used for the modeling of the manual dishwashing
Figure 50: Snapshot of EASETECH, depicting the modeling of the collection and transportation process
Figure 51: Snapshot of EASETECH, depicting the modeling of the Sorting facility
Figure 52: Snapshot of EASETECH, depicting the modeling of the transportation of the Sorting facility in DK to the Recycling plant in DK
110
Figure 53: Snapshot of EASETECH, depicting the modeling of the Recycling process
Figure 54: Snapshot of EASETECH, depicting the modeling of the transportation of the Recycling facility to the Sanitary landfill
Figure 55: Snapshot of EASETECH, depicting the modeling of the Sanitary landfill
Figure 56: Snapshot of EASETECH, depicting the modeling of the transportation of the residuals coming out of the Sorting facility to the Incineration plant
The snapshots of the processes: ‘’Incineration with energy recovery in
Vestforbrænding’’, ‘’Transportation of bottom ash to mineral landfill’’ and ‘’Bottom
ash landfill’’ are the same as in Annex B2.
111
C1.4 Scenario 3
Figure 57: Snapshot of EASETECH depicting the modeled processes of Scenario 3
Figure 58: Snapshot of EASETECH depicting the modeled Reprocessing process
Figure 59: Snapshot of EASETECH depicting the modeled super cleaning process, included in the modeling of the ‘’PET Reprocessing’’ process
Figure 60: Snapshot of EASETECH depicting the modeled pelletizing process, included in the modeling of the ‘’PET Reprocessing’’ process
The snapshots of the rest processes of the scenario are depicted in Annex C1.3.
112
C1.5 Scenario 4
Figure 61: Snapshot of EASETECH depicting the modeled processes of Scenario 4
Figure 62: Snapshot of EASETECH depicting the modeling of Manual dishwashing in scenario 4
Figure 63: Snapshot of EASETECH depicting the modeling of Automatic dishwashing
Figure 64: Snapshot of EASETECH depicting the modeling of the detergent for dishwashers
Figure 65: Snapshot of EASETECH depicting the modeling of the rinsing agent for dishwashers
113
The snapshots of the rest of the processes used in the Scenario can be seen in Annex
C 1.2.
C2 Data and calculations
C2.1 Waste flow
Table 34: Origin of the modeled amount of foodstuff, source: Gilleßen et al., 2013
Type of soiling Amount Unit
Tea 6 g
Milk 10 ml*
Egg 4 g
Meat 4.5 g
Spinach 6.5 g
Oat flakes 3 g
margarine 2 g
sum 36 g
Soil per item 1.44 g *assuming a density of 1
C 2.2 Manual dishwashing
Table 35: Data used for the manual dishwashing, source: Stamminger et al., 2007
Water (l) Energy (kWh) Cleanser (kg) Evaluation of
cleaning (/5)
Average* /12
items washed 63 1.6 0.026 3.3
Average* /item
washed
8.6
0.2
0.0029
3.3
*The average refers to all 113 manual washers of the study
Based on the assumption that the manual dishwashing of the packaging is more like a
flushing, the data concerning the warming up of the water (energy) and the amount of
cleanser used in the study, were not included in the modeling of the present study.
Removal of foodstuff
Taking under consideration that the average evaluated cleaning efficiency was 3.3/5,
it was assumed that the efficiency of the manual dishwashing is 66%. Thus, 34% of
the foodstuff remains on the packaging after the manual dishwashing.
Inputs in the modeling of manual dishwashing
Table 36: inputs in the modeling of manual dishwashing
Scenario Type of washing Number of dirty packages
(1kg of input)
Water (l)
2,3 Manually 14.2 122
4 Manually 7.2 1170*
114
*The amount of water in the fourth scenario is calculated for the water consumption of 19 times of
cleaning (20 uses of packaging).
C 2.3 Automatic dishwashing
The inserted numbers in the model refer to the number of dirty packaging consisting
1kg of input since EASETECH’s calculations are performed per kilo of input. For the
case of the reusable packaging, 1kg of input contains 7.2 packages. The inserted
values, the ralevant calculations and the reference data can be found in the following
Tables.
Table 37: Data used for the Automatic dishwashing, source: (Stamminger et al., 2007; Presutto et al., 2007)
Automatic
dishwashing
Water (l) Energy
(kWh)
Cleanser
(kg)
Evaluation
of cleaning
(/5)
Rinsing
agent (kg)
Consumption/place 1.5 0.13 0.0025 3.8 0.00029
Removal of foodstuff
Taking under consideration that the average evaluated cleaning efficiency was 3.8/5,
it was assumed that the efficiency of the automatic dishwashing is 76%.
Inputs in the modeling of Automatic dishwashing Table 38: Inputs in the modeling of Automatic dishwashing
Scenario Type of
washing
Number of
dirty packages
(1kg of input)
Water
(l)
Energy
(kWh)
Cleanser
(kg)
Rinsing
agent
(kg)
4 Automatic 7.2 210.1 17 0.34 0.04
The calculations of the inputs correspond to the consumptions of 19 times of cleaning
referring to 20 uses of packaging.
115
Annex D: Life Cycle Costing , Detailed Calculations
D1 General Data
The following Subchapters depict data used for the basic calculation of the study. All
the monetary changes were made based on the currency of July 2013, depicted in
Table 39.
Table 39: Currency considered in the project, July 2013
Euro (€) 7.46 DKK
GBP 1.17 €
For the capital costs it was considered an interest rate of 7% (Dominic Hogg,
Eunomia Research & Consulting, n.d.).
D1.1 Materials and Energy
Table 40: Prices of raw materials used in the production of the foil, source: Foil's Production Industry, 2013
Raw material Price (DKK/kg)
Hot washed R-PET flakes 7.46
Virgin Pellets 9.24
R-PET Pellets 8.36
Table 41: Prices of the foil, source: Foil's Production Industry, 2013
Transparent Foil Price (DKK/kg)
Virgin 14.6
V-R-V 10.7
V-SCR-V 11.0
Thicker foil (for the reusable) 12.8
Table 42: Prices of the packaging, source: Table 43 (Nielsen, 2013)
Price (DKK/kg)
Packaging 31* *Referring to the price of the studied packaging. The price of the final product varies
according to the order’s size (Nielsen, 2013)
Table 44: Price of diesel, source1: (Fuel-prices-europe.info, 2013), source 2: (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2012) , source 3: (Axion Consulting, 2009) source4: (Marvin J., 2012), source 5: (HOFOR, 2013), source 6: (Mollenborg, 2008)
Country Dieselsource1
(DKK/ l)
Electricity
(DKK/ kWh)
Water
(DKK/kg)
Industrial gas
(DKK/kWh)
Denmark 11.72 1.9 source 6
*0.039source 5
United
Kingdom
11.99 0.091 source 2
0.0023 source 3
0.17source 4
*The analytical calculations of the price are presented in Table 45
116
Table 45: Analytical calculations of the water price and drainage in Copenhagen (2013), source: (HOFOR, 2013)
Elements Price for 1l of water (DKK/l)
Water tariff 0.0065
Groundwater Protection 0.00050
Water tax 0.0055
State tax mapping of groundwater
resources 0.00067
Drainage Contributions, transport 0.0064
Drainage Contributions, cleaning 0.012
Moms 0.0078
Total 0.039
D1.2 Salaries
Table 46: Salaries in UK, source: (Reed, 2013)
Job Salary (DKK/y)
Administrative position 266245
Worker in industry 193094
Salary (DKK/h)
Driver 105
Table 47: Salaries in DK, source: (Statistics Denmark, 2013)
Job Salary (DKK/h)
Administrative position 249.56
Worker 177.84
Driver 163
D1.3 Truck
Table 48: Different volume trucks and their respective capital and operational costs
Volume of
truck (ton)
Capital cost
(DKK)
Repair-
Maintenance
(DKK/y)
License
(DKK/y)
Insurance
(DKK/y)
5 1199993 49997 4998 24998
10 2399986 99994 9996 49997
25 5999966 249985 24991 124992
D1.4 Washing Equipment
Table 49: Cost of ringing agent in the Danish market in July 2013, source: personal research
Ringing agent Cost (DKK/lt)
Product A 92.38
Product B 19
Average price 55.69
DKK/washing 0.17
117
Table 50: Cost of brushes and sponges in the Danish market in July 2013, source: personal research
Bruches and sponges Costs (DKK/item)
Product A 22.95
Product B 19.95
Product C 39.95
Product D 19.95
Product E 0.70
Product F 1
Average cost 17.42
DKK/wash* 0.09
*It was assumed that one brush/item can wash 200 packages
Table 51: Cost of detergent for dishwashers in the Danish market in July 2013, source: personal research
Normal detergent powder Cost
(DKK/kg)
DKK/washing
Product A 46.3 0.82
Product B 35.98 0.64
Product C 38.98 0.62
Product D 134 2.5
Average cost 63.82 1.15
Table 52: Data of consumptions, source: Presutto et al., 2007
Use of detergent (g/cycle) 30
Softener (salt) (g/cycle) 20
Rinsing agent (g/cycle) 4
125ml of rinsing agent is(loads)* 40
Rinsing agent in 1lt (loads) 320
*Information found in product’s webpage
118
Table 53: Cost of dishwashers of Class A+ in the Danish market in July 2013, source: personal research
Dishwashers A+ Cost (DKK)
Dishwasher 1 3999
Dishwasher 2 6999
Dishwasher 3 5999
Dishwasher 4 4999
Dishwasher 5 3989
Dishwasher 6 3450
Dishwasher 7 4140
Dishwasher 8 4346
Dishwasher 9 3499
Dishwasher 10 2399
Dishwasher 11 6999
Dishwasher 12 3650
Dishwasher 13 2989
Dishwasher 14 4606
Dishwasher 15 2346
Average price 4294
D2 Virgin Foil production
The economic calculations of the virgin foil production were based on the operational
data presented in Annex D1, referring to UK. Additional data, however, and a number
of assumptions needed to be considered for the implementation of the costing.
According to Foil Production Industry’s brochure, the facility produces annually
6000000kg of foil and occupies 20 people working in the manufacturing production
line. It was assumed that the production line works 6 days/week, for 2 shifts/day and
every person works 8h/d. It was also assumed that 8 more people are occupied in
administrative positions. The capital cost used for the present calculations was
representative for 2010 (Foil Production Industry’s brochure); however it was
assumed that the cost for constructions did not change until now. The following
Tables represent the life cycle costing calculations for the facility’s function.
Table 54: Annulation of Capital costs for foil production facility
Years Rate Present cost
(DKK)
DKK/year DKK/kg of
foil produced
1. Capital cost 15 7% 17,456,400 1,916,619 0.32
119
Table 55: Operational and maintenance costs for foil production facility
2. Operational and
maintenance costs
DKK/year DKK/kg of
foil produced
2.1. Repairs-
maintenance
5% of investment cost 95,830.94 0.016
2.2. Salaries 5,991,839 1.00
2.2.1. Workers 20 persons 3,861,879
2.2.2.Administration
staff
8 persons 2,129,960
2.3. Materials/Energy 11.13
2.3.1. Virgin pellets 1.2 kg/kg foil 11.09
2.3.2. Energy
consumption
0.406 kwh/kg input 0.037
Total 12.1
Table 56: Revenues, Total costs and Net Revenue for the foil production
DKK/kg of
foil produced
Total costs 12.4
Revenues 14.6
Net Revenue 2.19
D3 Packaging Production
Based on the information obtained by the visiting to the industry’s facility, the
company’s human resources consists of 4 persons working in the administrative part
and of 14 persons working in the production line and the company’s ‘’workshop’’34
(Nielsen, 2013). The facility is functional for 18 hours per day and operates 11
thermoforming machines (Nielsen, 2013).
Based on the above mentioned data, it was assumed that the production line functions
with 4.7 35
persons per shift, with 3 shifts/day while the administration part functions
with 1 person/shift for 2 shifts /day.
The company’s monthly packaging production is 35.000kg with a monthly foil
consumption of 55000kg (Nielsen, 2013). The hourly packaging production was
calculated to be 97kg/h assuming that the working days per month are 20 and the
daily working hours 18.
The total area of the facility is extended in 3200m2 (Donplast A/S). The investment
cost includes the building’s construction costs and the equipment’s cost. The surface
area (m2) of the excavations, the paved area and the buildings were based on
34
‘’Workshop’’ is named the part of the facility where new forming tools are designed and produced
(Nielsen, 2013). 35
4.7=14 persons divided with the 3 shifts per day.
120
assumptions while the costs for each one of the civil works was calculated based on
Danish data (Dominic Hogg & Eunomia Research & Consulting). The equipment’s
cost estimation was based on internet research.
The following Tables present the analytical estimated costs for the packaging
production facility.
Table 57: Capital costs of the packaging production facility
1. Capital costs Unit Unit price
(DKK)
Sum
(DKK)
1.1.Civil works 92615
land acquisition 3200 m2 149 8579
surface preparation 3200 m2 22 1287
excavations 2000 m2 52 1877
paved area 1200 m2 403 8686
supply systems 500 m 1000 8981
lighting incl. cables 5 9996 898
buildings 2000 m2 1499 53887
miscellaneous (including
design etc)
10% of civil
costs
8420
1.2.Equipment 59316
thermoforming machines 11 58981
industrial water cooler 1 335
Total 151932
Table 58: Annulation of the capital costs for packaging production
1.Capital costs Years Rate Present cost
(DKK)
Annual cost
(DKK)
DKK/kg
produced
1.1.Civil works 15 7% 690910 565902 1.3
1.2.Equipment 7 7% 442500
612520 1.5
Total 2.8
121
Table 59: Operational and maintenance costs for packaging production
2.Operational and maintenance
costs
DKK/y DKK/kg
produced
2.1.Repairs-maintenance
15853 0.038
maintenance of thermoforming
machines
5% of investment cost 14920
maintenance of cooling unit 5% of investment cost 932.5
DKK/h DKK/kg
produced
2.2. Salaries
1079 11.10
workers per shift 4.7
830
administration staff/shift 1 250
2.3. Materials/Energy
Electric energy 3.0
Foils 11.98
Total 26.1
Table 60: Revenues, Total costs and Net Revenue for the packaging production
DKK/ kg of packaging
Revenues 31.43
Total costs 28.93
Net revenue 2.50
D4 Collection
The cost calculations took place for a truck of 10t with a diesel consumption of
0.03l/kg. The collection’s truck price, the maintenance cost, the license and the
insurance fee were found in the report of Hogg & Eunomia Research & Consulting,
corresponding to a 5tn collection vehicle applying to the danish economic reality. In
order to adjust the availabe data to the study’s truck carasteristics, the cost of the 5tn
truck was devided with 5.000 kg so as to find the cost per kg, which was following
multiplied with the kilos of the studied truck (10000kg) (see Annex D1). The
respective way of thinking was also applied in the estimation of repair-maintenance
cost, licence fee and insurance fee. For the calculation of the repair-maintenance costs
it was also assumed that the truck performs 1 route per day, while for the calculation
of the licence and insurance fee it was additionaly assumed that the truck is
functional for 5d/week., 52 weeks/year.
According to Municipality of Copenhagen (2013), the truck is staffed with two
persons (1 driver, 1 helper) and the average route lasts for 3.5 hours. Based on that, it
was calculated the labour’s cost of the collection. The truck’s life time for collection
purposes lasts approximately 5 years (Municipality of Copenhagen, 2013).
122
The fee paied to the company which collects and transports the waste to icineration
was considered revenue. The cost of the fee is 1032 DKK/tn Municipality of
Copenhagen, 2013).
The Table 61 present the analytical estimated life cycle costing for the transportation
company.
Table 61: Life Cycle costing for waste collection
Costs Years Rate DKK/year DKK/kg
1. Capital cost 0.225
Vehicle 5 7% 585,334 0.225
2.Operational and maintenance costs 0.21
Repair-maintenance 0.038
Labour (2 persons) 0.11
Diesel 0.036
Licence 0.0038
Insurance 0.019
Total costs DKK 0.4
Revenues from fee DKK 1.0
Net revenue DKK 0.6
D5 Transportation
The volume of the truck used in the road transportation for all the scenarios was the
same (25t) for both countries. The capital cost was calculated with the same way and
based on the same data as described in Annex D4. The price of the truck was assumed
to be the same for both countries.
The estimation of the truck’s license and insurance were also based on the
assumptions and the calculation approach presented in Annex D4, assuming the same
costs for both countries. The calculated numbers can be found in Annex D1.
The diesel consumption thought, was different for the two countries based on the data
sources mentioned in Chapter 4. Thus, the diesel expenses were calculated to be
different for the two countries. It is reminded that in UK the consumption is 0.00001
l/kg/km and in DK 0.00003 l/kg/km. Due to the link of the cost with the driven
kilometers, the different transportation routes were calculated in the same way but
assuming different distances. The transported distances were estimated based on
Google Maps and are the ones presented in the LCA part of the study.
The estimation of the labor expenses for the two countries, were also different, based
on the hourly salary of each country (see Annex D1). The time per transported route
was estimated based on Google Map’s estimations. It was also assumed that each
truck is staffed with two drivers.
123
Due to lack of information concerning the fee paid to the transportation company, it
was assumed that the paid fee for each transportation route is 2.4 times larger than the
transportation’s total cost according to the situation applied for the collection of the
waste (Annex D4).
Tables below depict the estimated life cycle costing applying to the transportation
company.
Table 62: Transportation of the residuals (coming from the Sorting facility) to the Incineration plant (DK)
Costs Years Rate Present cost
(DKK)
DKK/year DKK/kg
1.Capital costs 0.17
Vehicle 7 7% 5999966 1,113,313 0.17
2.Operational and
maintenance costs
0.067
Repair-maintenance 249985 0.039
Licence 24991 0.0038
Insurance 124992 0.019
Labour (2 persons) 0.0050
Diesel 0.00000037
Total costs 0.24
Revenue 0.56
Net revenue 0.32
Table 63: Transportation of the residuals (coming from the Recycling plant) to the landfill (UK)
Costs Years Rate Present
cost
(DKK)
DKK/year DKK/kg
1.Capital cost 0.17
Vehicle 7 7% 5999966 1,113,313 0.17
2.Operational and
maintenance costs
0.064
Repair-maintenance 249985 0.039
Labour (2 persons) 0.0084
Diesel 0.00000034
Licence 24991 0.0038
Insurance 124992 0.013
Total costs 0.24
Revenue 0.56
Net revenue 0.32
124
Table 64: Transportation from UK to DK and vice versa
DKK/kg
Total costs 0.16
Revenue 0.55
Net revenue 0.38
D6 Sorting Facility
In the present study, the sorting facility was assumed to be the Danskreturn system
which is a non-profit organization. That means that the total costs should be equal to
the revenues, ending to zero net revenue (Danskretursystem (f)). According to
Danskretursystem (2013) the deposit fees are adjusted on an annual basis based on the
past volumes of sales and the future predictions. The importers and producers pay the
respective fee for the sales of their products. According to the speciality of the studied
facility, the present economic analysis included only the capital costs of the facility,
the operational costs excluding the paied deposit fee and the revenue of the purchased
sorted PET excluding the paied fee coming of the importers and producer participants.
Since it was not possible to find economic information for plastic sorting facilities in
DK, information concerning the civil works was obtained from transfer stations in DK
(Dominic Hogg & Eunomia Research & Consulting) assuming that the civil
constructions are similar. The capacity of the assessed sorting facility is 15000t/y.
In addition, the prices for the forklifts and the wheeled loading shove used in the
facility were obtained from the respective equipment used in sorting facilities in UK,
assuming to be representative for DK too. The English prices were found in Dominic
Hogg & Eunomia Research & Consulting .
According to Slater (2009), the purchase price of the sorted PET in UK, in 2006 was
1.53 DKK/kg. Assuming an incising price rate of 7% during the last eight years, the
purchase price for the study was set to be 1.63DKK/kg. It is assumed that all the
sorted material is sold to UK with the above price, corresponding to the material flow
followed in the scenarios of the LCA study.
The number of people occupied in the facility and the type of their position was based
on assumptions.
Tables below presents the life cycle costing of the sorting facility excluding the fee
paid by the system’s participants and the deposit fees.
125
Table 65: Capital costs for the Sorting facility
1.Capital costs Unit Unit price
(DKK)
Sum
(DKK)
1.1.Civil works 3028835
land acquisition 3000 m2 149 447600
surface preparation 3000 m2 22 67140
excavations 1000 m2 52 52220
paved area 2400 m2 403 966816
unpaved area 200 m2 97 19396
supply systems 500 m 1000 499820
lighting incl. cables 5 9996 49982
fencing 200 m2 254 50728
buildings 400 m2 1499 599784
miscellaneous (including design
etc)
10% of civil
costs 275349
1.2.Equipment 5004675
compactor 2 700002 1400003
forklift 2 358080 716160
wheeled loading shovel 1 954880 954880
baler 1 1933632 1933632
Total capital cost 6099878
Table 66: Annulation of the capital costs of the sorting facility
1.Capital costs Years Rate Present cost DKK/y DKK/kg
1.1.Civil works 15 7% 3028835 332,550 0.022
1.2.Equipment 7 7% 5004675 928,634 0.062
Total annualized capital costs 0.084
126
Table 67: Operational and maintenance costs for the Sorting facility, *excluding the deposit fees paid
2.Operational and maintenance costs DKK/y DKK/kg
2.1. Repairs-maintenance 197330 0.013
maintenance compactor 5% of investment 35000
maintenance transport equipment 5% of investment 17904
maintenance loading shover 5% of investment 47744
maintenance baler 5% of investment
96682
DKK/h DKK/kg
2.2. Salaries 1536 0.90
workers 4 711
forklift's drivers 2 326
administration staff 2 499
DKK/kg
2.3. Energy
0.14
diesel 0.0020 l/kg 0.023
electric energy (sorting) 0.034 kWh/kg 0.065
electric energy (compactor) 0.025 kWh/kg 0.048
Total 1.05
Table 68: Revenues, Total costs and Net Revenue for the Sorting facility
DKK/ kg of packaging
Revenues* =Total costs=1.05
Net revenue 0
127
D7 Mechanical Recycling
Table 69: Capital costs for the Recycling Facility
1.Capital cost Ye
ars
Ra
te
Present cost
(DKK)
DKK/y
DKK/kg
produced
1.1.Civil works 15 7
%
10,473,840
1.2.Project management and
design costs
15 7
%
6,982,560
1.3.Equipment 15 7
%
154,550,237
Bale breaking and NIR/colour
sorting section
39,241,987
Bale breaking and sorting
conveyors and installation
9,810,497
Hot flake washing 65,941,551
Hot flake washing conveyors and
installation
16,487,570
PET extrusion 18,451,415
PET extrusion conveyors and
installation
4,617,218
Total 15 7
%
172,006,637 18,885,
404
0.24
Table 70: Operational and maintenance costs for the Recycling facility
2.Operational and maintenance costs DKK/y DKK/kg
produced
2.1.Insurance 1047384 0.013
2.2.Communications 174,564 0.0022
2.3.Repairs-maintenance 5% of investment 8,600,332 0.11
2.4.Salaries number 6,085,423 0.076
Bale breaking and sorting 3 operators/shift 2,317,128
Flake washing 2 operators/shift 1,544,752
Maintenance staff 4 operators/shift 772,376
Lab staff 2 operators/shift 386,188
Other staff 4 operators/shift 1,064,980
2.5. Materials 2.2
PET bale 2.1
Fresh water 0.10
2.6.Energy 0.15
Natural ga energy 0.12
Electric Energy 0.027
Total 2.6
128
Table 71: Revenues, Total costs and Net Revenue for the Recycling facility
DKK/kg produced
Revenues 7.5
Total costs 2.8
Net revenue 4.6
D8 Mechanical Recycling followed by the supercleaning process and
pelletizing
Table 72: Capital costs for the Recycling Facility including supercleaning and pelletizing
1.Capital cost Years Rate Present cost
(DKK)
DKK/y DKK/kg
produced
1.1.Civil works 15 7% 10,473,840 1,149,971 0.01
1.2.Project management
and design costs
15 7% 6,982,560
766,648 0.01
1.3.Equipment 15 7% 193,792,225 21,277,345 0.27
Bale breaking and
NIR/colour sorting section
39,241,987
Bale breaking and sorting
conveyors and installation
9,810,497
Hot flake washing 65,941,551
Hot flake washing
conveyors and installation
16,487,570
PET extrusion 18,451,415
PET extrusion conveyors
and installation
4,617,218
Supercleaning reactor 39,241,987
Total 15 7% 211,248,625 23,193,963 0.29
129
Table 73: Operational and maintenance costs for the Recycling Facility including supercleaning and pelletizing
2.Operational and maintenance
costs
DKK/y DKK/kg
produced
2.1. Insurance 0.013
2.2. Communications 174,564 0.0022
2.3. Repairs-maintenance 5% of the
investment cost
8,600,332 0.11
2.4. Salaries 6,085,423 0.076
Bale breaking and sorting 3 operators/shift 2,317,128
Flake washing 2 operators/shift 1,544,752
maintenance staff 4 operators/shift 772,376
lab staff 2 operators/shift 386,188
Other staff 4 operators/shift 1,064,980
2.5.Materials (for 1kg output) 2.2
PET bale 1.31 2.1
Fresh water 5.92 0.1
2.6. Energy 0.2
Natural gas energy for recycling 0.695 0.1
Electric Energy for recycling 0.2919 0.0
Heat (from natural gas) for
pelletizing
0.068 0.012 0.0027
Pellet extrusion 447 0.018
Energy consumption for
supercleaning
0.12 0.021 0.0048
Total 2.6
Table 74: Revenues from the Recycling Facility including supercleaning and pelletizing
Revenues DKK/y DKK/kg produced
SCR-PET flakes 8.36266 6.5
SCR-PET Pellets 8.36 1.9
Total 8.4
Table 75: Revenues, Total costs and Net Revenue for the Recycling facility including supercleaning and pelletizing
DKK/kg produced
Total costs 2.9
Revenues 8.4
Net revenue 5.46
D9 Landfill in UK
The life cycle costing of the present landfill refers to a new extension of an existing
site in UK according to Dominic Hogg & Eunomia Research & Consulting. The
calculations corespond a fill volume of 175000tons of waste and the expected life of
the facility is 10 years.
130
Table 76: Capital costs for the Landfilling in UK
1.Capital costs Present cost
(DKK)
Life
(y)
Rate Annual costs
(DKK/y)
DKK/kg
1.1.Site assessment 2387200 10 7% 339884 0.0019
1.2.Acquisition 11936000 10 7% 1699418 0.010
1.3.Capex and
development
105101923 10 7% 14964149 0.086
1.4.Restoration 7161600 10 7% 1019651 0.0058
Total 0.10
Table 77: Operational for the Landfilling in UK
2.Operational costs Annual costs (DKK/y) DKK/kg
Operation 14323200 0.082
Landfill tax 0.56
Total 0.64
Table 78: End of life costs for the Landfilling in UK
3. End of life costs Present cost
(DKK)
Life (y) Rate Annual costs
(DKK/y)
DKK/kg
Aftercare 36737385 10 7% 5230577 0.030
Total 0.030
Table 79: Revenues for the Landfilling in UK
4.Revenues DKK/kg
4.1. Gate fee 741.90 DKK/ton 0.74
Total 0.74
Table 80: Revenues, Total costs and Net Revenue for the Landfilling in UK
DKK/kg
Total costs 0.77
Revenues -0.74
Net cost/ net revenue 0.031
D10 Manual Dishwashing
Table 81: Life cycle costing for the manual dishwashing washing process
Costs DKK/packaging DKK/1000
packaging
DKK/50
packaging
1.Capital cost 0.087 87 4.4
brush/sponge 0.087 87 4.4
2.Operation costs 0.34 336 16.8
water and drainage 0.34 336 16.8
Total 0.42 423 21.1
131
D11 Automatic Dishwashing
Table 82: Animalization of the dishwasher’s capital cost
Capital costs Years Rate Present cost (DKK) DKK/y DKK/cycle
Dishwasher A+ 15 5% 4294 413.69 1.48
Table 83: Life cycle costing for the automatic washing process
Costs DKK/ packaging DKK/50packaging
1.Capital costs 0.12 6.16
2.Operational and maintenance costs 0.42 21.1
Maintenance costs 0.012 0.61
Detergent 0.10 4.8
Rinsing agent 0.015 0.73
Electricity 0.24 12.0
Water and drainage 0.060 3.0
Total costs 0.54 27.2
132
Annex E: Environmental Results
E1 Characterized Results Table 84: Characterized results for scenario1
Name CC SOD POF TA EP FE DAR HTC HTNC ET DARF PM kg CO2-Eq kg CFC-11-
Eq
kg NMVOC kg SO2-Eq kg NOx-Eq kg P-Eq kg
antimony-Eq
CTU CTU CTU MJ kgPM2.5-
eq
Bottom ash
landfill
2.67E-02 1.87E-11 9.86E-05 7.16E-05 1.12E-04 3.58E-07 1.95E-16 3.07E-09 6.50E-10 1.71E-01 2.32E+00 2.93E-06
Collection and transportation
6.10E-01 5.96E-10 2.87E-03 1.74E-03 3.02E-03 0.00E+00 2.97E-16 1.92E-11 4.04E-09 1.59E-02 8.27E+01 1.55E-05
Transportation
to mineral landfill
2.34E-02 2.29E-11 9.56E-05 5.79E-05 9.84E-05 0.00E+00 1.14E-17 7.37E-13 1.55E-10 6.09E-04 3.17E+00 5.50E-07
Waste
Incineration,
DK
-2.95E+01 -3.31E-08 -2.41E-01 -3.20E-01 -2.61E-01 4.92E-08 1.25E-08 -9.78E-09 -1.24E-06 -2.90E-01 -1.58E+03 -1.17E-02
Packaging
production
2.27E+00 -3.76E-06 -1.84E-01 -2.16E-01 -1.07E-01 -5.15E-05 -3.41E-04 -1.05E-06 -4.58E-06 -3.07E+01 -1.32E+03 -2.64E-02
Production of
virgin foil
-2.35E+01 -1.68E-06 -8.95E-02 -8.32E-02 -4.41E-02 -2.76E-05 -1.93E-04 -5.54E-07 -2.02E-06 -1.60E+01 -9.32E+02 -8.82E-03
Transport of cut
foil (from DK
to foil production
facility in UK )
1.12E+00 2.43E-08 7.05E-03 6.67E-03 7.37E-03 1.20E-07 2.00E-08 1.42E-09 1.44E-08 6.33E-02 1.25E+02 4.59E-04
Transportation of foil (from
UK to
packaging production
facility in DK)
3.10E+00 6.74E-08 1.96E-02 1.85E-02 2.05E-02 3.33E-07 5.57E-08 3.95E-09 4.01E-08 1.76E-01 3.47E+02 1.28E-03
Virgin PET
pellets
3.39E+02 1.41E-05 9.58E-01 1.12E+00 6.87E-01 1.91E-04 1.27E-03 3.92E-06 2.03E-05 1.15E+02 9.09E+03 1.25E-01
sum 2.93E+02 8.71E-06 4.74E-01 5.29E-01 3.06E-01 1.13E-04 7.35E-04 2.32E-06 1.26E-05 6.84E+01 5.81E+03 7.95E-02
savings -5.30E+01 -5.47E-06 -5.15E-01 -6.19E-01 -4.12E-01 -7.90E-05 -5.34E-04 -1.61E-06 -7.84E-06 -4.70E+01 -3.84E+03 -4.69E-02
burdens 3.46E+02 1.42E-05 9.88E-01 1.15E+00 7.18E-01 1.92E-04 1.27E-03 3.93E-06 2.04E-05 1.15E+02 9.65E+03 1.26E-01
133
Table 85: Characterized results for scenario2
Name CC SOD POF TA EP FE DAR HTC HTNC ET DARF PM
kg CO2-
Eq
kg CFC-
11-Eq
kg NMVOC kg SO2-Eq kg NOx-Eq kg P-Eq kg
antimony-
Eq
CTU CTU CTU MJ kgPM2.5-
eq
Bottom ash
landfill
6.63E-03 4.64E-12 2.45E-05 1.78E-05 2.79E-05 8.90E-08 4.84E-17 7.64E-10 1.62E-10 4.25E-02 5.77E-01 7.29E-07
Collection and
transportation
6.02E-01 5.88E-10 2.83E-03 1.72E-03 2.98E-03 0.00E+00 2.94E-16 1.89E-11 3.99E-09 1.57E-02 8.16E+01 1.53E-05
Manual dish
washing
3.50E+00 3.18E-07 1.53E-02 2.81E-02 2.80E-02 7.66E-03 1.20E-05 7.30E-07 1.41E-05 3.25E+01 3.25E+01 2.38E-03
PET Recycling
(sc2)
-5.04E+01 1.19E-07 -2.51E-01 -1.67E-01 -1.21E-01 -1.52E-03 -1.45E-06 -4.02E-07 -2.13E-08 -4.81E+00 -2.28E+03 -9.44E-03
Sanitary
landfill
5.87E-02 6.80E-09 7.59E-04 4.53E-04 7.77E-04 3.83E-08 1.17E-08 4.02E-10 1.95E-09 1.03E-02 8.28E-01 7.06E-05
Sorting facility 4.34E+00 1.70E-09 6.19E-03 5.47E-03 6.83E-03 0.00E+00 4.28E-16 3.15E-10 3.80E-08 1.65E-02 1.02E+02 3.96E-04
Transportation
(bottom ash-
mineral
landfill)
5.82E-03 5.69E-12 2.37E-05 1.44E-05 2.45E-05 0.00E+00 2.84E-18 1.83E-13 3.85E-11 1.51E-04 7.89E-01 1.37E-07
Transportation
(DK-UK)
1.80E+00 3.63E-08 1.11E-02 1.03E-02 1.16E-02 1.79E-07 2.99E-08 2.12E-09 2.24E-08 9.79E-02 2.05E+02 6.88E-04
Transportation
(residues-
sanitary
landfill)
2.57E-02 2.51E-11 1.05E-04 6.34E-05 1.08E-04 0.00E+00 1.25E-17 8.07E-13 1.70E-10 6.68E-04 3.48E+00 6.02E-07
Transportation
(sorting
facility-
Vestforbrændin
g)
3.01E-02 2.94E-11 1.23E-04 7.44E-05 1.26E-04 0.00E+00 1.47E-17 9.47E-13 1.99E-10 7.83E-04 4.08E+00 7.06E-07
134
Table 86: Characterized results for scenario2 (continue)
Name CC SOD POF TA EP FE DAR HTC HTNC ET DARF PM
kg CO2-
Eq
kg CFC-
11-Eq
kg NMVOC kg SO2-Eq kg NOx-Eq kg P-Eq kg
antimony-
Eq
CTU CTU CTU MJ kgPM2.5-
eq
Waste
Incineration,
DK
-7.25E+00 -8.28E-09 -6.02E-02 -7.98E-02 -6.52E-02 1.22E-08 3.08E-09 -2.44E-09 -3.10E-07 -7.23E-02 -3.95E+02 -2.92E-03
Packaging
production
2.27E+00 -3.76E-06 -1.84E-01 -2.16E-01 -1.07E-01 -5.15E-05 -3.41E-04 -1.05E-06 -4.58E-06 -3.07E+01 -1.32E+03 -2.64E-02
Production of
virgin foil
-2.35E+01 -1.68E-06 -8.95E-02 -8.32E-02 -4.41E-02 -2.76E-05 -1.93E-04 -5.54E-07 -2.02E-06 -1.60E+01 -9.32E+02 -8.82E-03
Transport of
cut foil (from
DK to foil
production
facility in UK )
1.12E+00 2.43E-08 7.05E-03 6.67E-03 7.37E-03 1.20E-07 2.00E-08 1.42E-09 1.44E-08 6.33E-02 1.25E+02 4.59E-04
Transportation
of foil (from
UK to
packaging
production
facility in DK)
3.10E+00 6.74E-08 1.96E-02 1.85E-02 2.05E-02 3.33E-07 5.57E-08 3.95E-09 4.01E-08 1.76E-01 3.47E+02 1.28E-03
Virgin PET
pellets
3.39E+02 1.41E-05 9.58E-01 1.12E+00 6.87E-01 1.91E-04 1.27E-03 3.92E-06 2.03E-05 1.15E+02 9.09E+03 1.25E-01
sum 2.75E+02 9.21E-06 4.37E-01 6.46E-01 4.28E-01 6.26E-03 7.46E-04 2.65E-06 2.76E-05 9.63E+01 5.06E+03 8.24E-02
savings -8.11E+01 -5.44E-06 -5.85E-01 -5.46E-01 -3.37E-01 -1.60E-03 -5.36E-04 -2.00E-06 -6.93E-06 -5.16E+01 -4.93E+03 -4.76E-02
burdens 3.56E+02 1.47E-05 1.02E+00 1.19E+00 7.65E-01 7.85E-03 1.28E-03 4.66E-06 3.46E-05 1.48E+02 9.99E+03 1.30E-01
135
Table 87: Characterized results for scenario 3
Name CC SOD POF TA EP FE DAR HTC HTNC ET DARF PM kg CO2-
Eq
kg CFC-11-
Eq
kg NMVOC kg SO2-Eq kg NOx-Eq kg P-Eq kg
antimony-
Eq
CTU CTU CTU MJ kgPM2.5-
eq
Bottom ash
landfill
6.63E-03 4.64E-12 2.45E-05 1.78E-05 2.79E-05 8.90E-08 4.84E-17 7.64E-10 1.62E-10 4.25E-02 5.77E-01 7.29E-07
Collection and
transportation
6.02E-01 5.88E-10 2.83E-03 1.72E-03 2.98E-03 0.00E+00 2.94E-16 1.89E-11 3.99E-09 1.57E-02 8.16E+01 1.53E-05
Manual dish
washing
3.50E+00 3.18E-07 1.53E-02 2.81E-02 2.80E-02 7.66E-03 1.20E-05 7.30E-07 1.41E-05 3.25E+01 3.25E+01 2.38E-03
PET
Reprocessing
-
7.57E+01
-3.98E-06 -2.55E-01 -2.85E-01 -1.74E-01 -5.64E-05 -3.78E-04 -1.12E-06 -5.57E-06 -3.35E+01 -2.51E+03 -3.26E-02
Sanitary landfill 6.39E-02 7.40E-09 8.26E-04 4.93E-04 8.46E-04 4.16E-08 1.27E-08 4.37E-10 2.12E-09 1.13E-02 9.02E-01 7.69E-05
Sorting facility 4.34E+00 1.70E-09 6.19E-03 5.47E-03 6.83E-03 0.00E+00 4.28E-16 3.15E-10 3.80E-08 1.65E-02 1.02E+02 3.96E-04
Transportation
(bottom ash-
mineral landfill,
DK)
5.82E-03 5.69E-12 2.37E-05 1.44E-05 2.45E-05 0.00E+00 2.84E-18 1.83E-13 3.85E-11 1.51E-04 7.89E-01 1.37E-07
Transportation
(DK-UK)
1.80E+00 3.63E-08 1.11E-02 1.03E-02 1.16E-02 1.79E-07 2.99E-08 2.12E-09 2.24E-08 9.79E-02 2.05E+02 6.88E-04
Transportation
(residues-landfill,
UK)
8.38E-02 8.19E-11 3.42E-04 2.07E-04 3.52E-04 0.00E+00 4.09E-17 2.64E-12 5.55E-10 2.18E-03 1.14E+01 1.97E-06
Transportation
(sorting facility-
Vestforbrænding)
3.01E-02 2.94E-11 1.23E-04 7.44E-05 1.26E-04 0.00E+00 1.47E-17 9.47E-13 1.99E-10 7.83E-04 4.08E+00 7.06E-07
Waste
Incineration, DK
-7.25E+00 -8.28E-09 -6.02E-02 -7.98E-02 -6.52E-02 1.22E-08 3.08E-09 -2.44E-09 -3.10E-07 -7.23E-02 -3.95E+02 -2.92E-03
136
Table 88: Characterized results for scenario 3 (continue)
Name CC SOD POF TA EP FE DAR HTC HTNC ET DARF PM kg CO2-
Eq
kg CFC-11-
Eq
kg NMVOC kg SO2-Eq kg NOx-Eq kg P-Eq kg
antimony-
Eq
CTU CTU CTU MJ kgPM2.5-
eq
Packaging
production
2.27E+00 -3.76E-06 -1.84E-01 -2.16E-01 -1.07E-01 -5.15E-05 -3.41E-04 -1.05E-06 -4.58E-06 -3.07E+01 -1.32E+03 -2.64E-02
Production of
virgin foil
-2.35E+01 -1.68E-06 -8.95E-02 -8.32E-02 -4.41E-02 -2.76E-05 -1.93E-04 -5.54E-07 -2.02E-06 -1.60E+01 -9.32E+02 -8.82E-03
Transport of cut
foil (from DK to
foil production
facility in UK )
1.12E+00 2.43E-08 7.05E-03 6.67E-03 7.37E-03 1.20E-07 2.00E-08 1.42E-09 1.44E-08 6.33E-02 1.25E+02 4.59E-04
Transportation of
foil (from UK to
packaging
production
facility in DK)
3.10E+00 6.74E-08 1.96E-02 1.85E-02 2.05E-02 3.33E-07 5.57E-08 3.95E-09 4.01E-08 1.76E-01 3.47E+02 1.28E-03
Virgin PET
pellets
3.39E+02 1.41E-05 9.58E-01 1.12E+00 6.87E-01 1.91E-04 1.27E-03 3.92E-06 2.03E-05 1.15E+02 9.09E+03 1.25E-01
sum 2.49E+02 5.11E-06 4.33E-01 5.28E-01 3.76E-01 7.72E-03 3.69E-04 1.93E-06 2.21E-05 6.76E+01 4.84E+03 5.93E-02
savings -1.06E+02 -9.42E-06 -5.89E-01 -6.64E-01 -3.90E-01 -1.35E-04 -9.12E-04 -2.72E-06 -1.25E-05 -8.02E+01 -5.16E+03 -7.07E-02
burdens 3.56E+02 1.45E-05 1.02E+00 1.19E+00 7.66E-01 7.85E-03 1.28E-03 4.66E-06 3.46E-05 1.48E+02 1.00E+04 1.30E-01
137
Table 89: Characterized results for scenario 4
Name CC SOD POF TA EP FE DAR HTC HTNC ET DARF PM
kg CO2-
Eq
kg CFC-11-
Eq
kg NMVOC kg SO2-Eq kg NOx-Eq kg P-Eq kg
antimony-
Eq
CTU CTU CTU MJ kgPM2.5-
eq
Automatic
dishwashing
1.24E+02 6.69E-07 1.20E-01 2.07E-01 1.27E-01 1.30E-02 5.53E-05 1.08E-06 5.58E-06 1.88E+01 1.49E+03 1.58E-02
Bottom ash
landfill
2.65E-03 1.85E-12 9.78E-06 7.10E-06 1.11E-05 3.55E-08 1.93E-17 3.05E-10 6.45E-11 1.70E-02 2.30E-01 2.91E-07
Collection and
transportation
5.99E-02 5.85E-11 2.82E-04 1.71E-04 2.97E-04 0.00E+00 2.92E-17 1.89E-12 3.97E-10 1.56E-03 8.12E+00 1.52E-06
Manual dish
washing
3.32E+00 3.02E-07 1.45E-02 2.67E-02 2.66E-02 7.28E-03 1.14E-05 6.93E-07 1.34E-05 3.08E+01 3.08E+01 2.26E-03
Transportation
(bottom ash-
landfill)
2.32E-03 2.27E-12 9.48E-06 5.74E-06 9.76E-06 0.00E+00 1.13E-18 7.31E-14 1.54E-11 6.04E-05 3.15E-01 5.45E-08
Waste
Incineration,
DK
-2.88E+00 -3.31E-09 -2.41E-02 -3.19E-02 -2.61E-02 4.84E-09 1.23E-09 -9.75E-10 -1.24E-07 -2.89E-02 -1.58E+02 -1.17E-03
sum 1.24E+02 9.68E-07 1.11E-01 2.02E-01 1.28E-01 2.02E-02 6.66E-05 1.77E-06 1.89E-05 4.96E+01 1.37E+03 1.69E-02
savings -2.88E+00 -3.31E-09 -2.41E-02 -3.19E-02 -2.61E-02 4.84E-09 1.23E-09 -9.75E-10 -1.24E-07 -2.89E-02 -1.58E+02 -1.17E-03
burdens 1.27E+02 9.71E-07 1.35E-01 2.34E-01 1.54E-01 2.02E-02 6.66E-05 1.77E-06 1.90E-05 4.97E+01 1.53E+03 1.80E-02
138
E2 Normalized Results Table 90: Normalized results for scenario1
Name CC SOD POF TA EP FE DAR HTC HTNC ET DARF PM mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE
Bottom ash
landfill
3.45E-03 9.11E-07 1.86E-03 1.44E-03 3.15E-04 3.73E-04 8.98E-13 9.46E-02 7.99E-04 3.38E-02 2.88E-02 6.23E-04
Collection and
transportation
7.90E-02 2.91E-05 5.43E-02 3.49E-02 8.48E-03 0.00E+00 1.37E-12 5.90E-04 4.96E-03 3.14E-03 1.03E+00 3.29E-03
Transportation
to mineral
landfill
3.03E-03 1.12E-06 1.81E-03 1.16E-03 2.76E-04 0.00E+00 5.26E-14 2.27E-05 1.91E-04 1.20E-04 3.94E-02 1.17E-04
Waste
Incineration,
DK
-3.81E+00 -1.61E-03 -4.55E+00 -6.41E+00 -7.32E-01 5.13E-05 5.76E-05 -3.01E-01 -1.53E+00 -5.72E-02 -1.97E+01 -2.48E+00
Packaging
production
2.93E-01 -1.83E-01 -3.48E+00 -4.33E+00 -3.01E-01 -5.36E-02 -1.57E+00 -3.22E+01 -5.63E+00 -6.07E+00 -1.64E+01 -5.61E+00
Production of
virgin foil
-3.04E+00 -8.19E-02 -1.69E+00 -1.67E+00 -1.24E-01 -2.87E-02 -8.88E-01 -1.70E+01 -2.48E+00 -3.16E+00 -1.16E+01 -1.87E+00
Transport of
cut foil (from
DK to foil
production
facility in UK
1.45E-01 1.18E-03 1.33E-01 1.34E-01 2.07E-02 1.25E-04 9.24E-05 4.37E-02 1.77E-02 1.25E-02 1.55E+00 9.75E-02
Transportation
of foil (from
UK to
packaging
production
facility in DK)
4.02E-01 3.29E-03 3.70E-01 3.72E-01 5.75E-02 3.46E-04 2.57E-04 1.21E-01 4.92E-02 3.47E-02 4.30E+00 2.71E-01
Virgin PET
pellets
4.38E+01 6.87E-01 1.81E+01 2.25E+01 1.93E+00 1.99E-01 5.85E+00 1.21E+02 2.50E+01 2.27E+01 1.13E+02 2.65E+01
sum 3.79E+01 4.25E-01 8.95E+00 1.06E+01 8.60E-01 1.18E-01 3.39E+00 7.13E+01 1.54E+01 1.35E+01 7.21E+01 1.69E+01
savings -6.85E+00 -2.67E-01 -9.73E+00 -1.24E+01 -1.16E+00 -8.23E-02 -2.46E+00 -4.95E+01 -9.63E+00 -9.29E+00 -4.76E+01 -9.96E+00
burdens 4.48E+01 6.91E-01 1.87E+01 2.30E+01 2.02E+00 2.00E-01 5.85E+00 1.21E+02 2.50E+01 2.28E+01 1.20E+02 2.68E+01
139
Table 91: Normalized results for scenario 2
Name CC SOD POF TA EP FE DAR HTC HTNC ET DARF PM mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE
Bottom ash landfill 8.58E-04 2.26E-07 4.63E-04 3.57E-04 7.83E-05 9.27E-05 2.23E-13 2.35E-02 1.98E-04 8.39E-03 7.16E-03 1.55E-04
Collection and
transportation
7.79E-02 2.87E-05 5.35E-02 3.44E-02 8.37E-03 0.00E+00 1.35E-12 5.83E-04 4.90E-03 3.09E-03 1.01E+00 3.25E-03
Manual dish washing
4.53E-01 1.55E-02 2.88E-01 5.63E-01 7.88E-02 7.98E+00 5.51E-02 2.25E+01 1.73E+01 6.41E+00 4.03E-01 5.04E-01
PET Recycling
(sc2)
-6.52E+00 5.80E-03 -4.74E+00 -3.35E+00 -3.39E-01 -1.58E+00 -6.69E-03 -1.24E+01 -2.62E-02 -9.51E-01 -2.83E+01 -2.00E+00
Sanitary landfill 7.59E-03 3.32E-04 1.43E-02 9.07E-03 2.18E-03 3.99E-05 5.38E-05 1.24E-02 2.39E-03 2.04E-03 1.03E-02 1.50E-02
Sorting facility 5.61E-01 8.31E-05 1.17E-01 1.10E-01 1.92E-02 0.00E+00 1.97E-12 9.69E-03 4.67E-02 3.26E-03 1.26E+00 8.42E-02
Transportation
(bottom ash-mineral
landfill)
7.53E-04 2.77E-07 4.49E-04 2.88E-04 6.87E-05 0.00E+00 1.31E-14 5.63E-06 4.73E-05 2.99E-05 9.78E-03 2.90E-05
Transportation (DK-UK)
2.33E-01 1.77E-03 2.09E-01 2.06E-01 3.25E-02 1.86E-04 1.38E-04 6.53E-02 2.75E-02 1.93E-02 2.54E+00 1.46E-01
Transportation
(residues-sanitary landfill)
3.32E-03 1.22E-06 1.98E-03 1.27E-03 3.03E-04 0.00E+00 5.76E-14 2.48E-05 2.09E-04 1.32E-04 4.31E-02 1.28E-04
Transportation
(sorting facility-
Vestforbrænding)
3.90E-03 1.43E-06 2.32E-03 1.49E-03 3.55E-04 0.00E+00 6.76E-14 2.91E-05 2.45E-04 1.55E-04 5.06E-02 1.50E-04
Waste Incineration -9.38E-01 -4.04E-04 -1.14E+00 -1.60E+00 -1.83E-01 1.27E-05 1.42E-05 -7.51E-02 -3.81E-01 -1.43E-02 -4.90E+00 -6.19E-01
Packaging
production
2.93E-01 -1.83E-01 -3.48E+00 -4.33E+00 -3.01E-01 -5.36E-02 -1.57E+00 -3.22E+01 -5.63E+00 -6.07E+00 -1.64E+01 -5.61E+00
Production of virgin foil
-3.04E+00 -8.19E-02 -1.69E+00 -1.67E+00 -1.24E-01 -2.87E-02 -8.88E-01 -1.70E+01 -2.48E+00 -3.16E+00 -1.16E+01 -1.87E+00
Transport of cut foil
(from DK to foil production facility
in UK )
1.45E-01 1.18E-03 1.33E-01 1.34E-01 2.07E-02 1.25E-04 9.24E-05 4.37E-02 1.77E-02 1.25E-02 1.55E+00 9.75E-02
Transportation of
foil (from UK to packaging
production facility
in DK)
4.02E-01 3.29E-03 3.70E-01 3.72E-01 5.75E-02 3.46E-04 2.57E-04 1.21E-01 4.92E-02 3.47E-02 4.30E+00 2.71E-01
Virgin PET pellets 4.38E+01 6.87E-01 1.81E+01 2.25E+01 1.93E+00 1.99E-01 5.85E+00 1.21E+02 2.50E+01 2.27E+01 1.13E+02 2.65E+01
sum 3.55E+01 4.49E-01 8.25E+00 1.30E+01 1.20E+00 6.52E+00 3.44E+00 8.16E+01 3.39E+01 1.90E+01 6.28E+01 1.75E+01
savings -1.02E+01 -2.65E-01 -1.11E+01 -1.10E+01 -9.47E-01 -1.66E+00 -2.47E+00 -6.17E+01 -8.51E+00 -1.02E+01 -6.12E+01 -1.01E+01
burdens 4.57E+01 7.15E-01 1.93E+01 2.39E+01 2.15E+00 8.18E+00 5.90E+00 1.43E+02 4.25E+01 2.92E+01 1.24E+02 2.76E+01
140
Table 92: Normalized results for scenario 3
Name CC SOD POF TA EP FE DAR HTC HTNC ET DARF PM
mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE
Bottom ash
landfill
8.58E-04 2.26E-07 4.63E-04 3.57E-04 7.83E-05 9.27E-05 2.23E-13 2.35E-02 1.98E-04 8.39E-03 7.16E-03 1.55E-04
Collection and
transportation
7.79E-02 2.87E-05 5.35E-02 3.44E-02 8.37E-03 0.00E+00 1.35E-12 5.83E-04 4.90E-03 3.09E-03 1.01E+00 3.25E-03
Manual dish
washing
4.53E-01 1.55E-02 2.88E-01 5.63E-01 7.88E-02 7.98E+00 5.51E-02 2.25E+01 1.73E+01 6.41E+00 4.03E-01 5.04E-01
PET
Reprocessing
-9.80E+00 -1.94E-01 -4.82E+00 -5.71E+00 -4.87E-01 -5.88E-02 -1.74E+00 -3.44E+01 -6.84E+00 -6.61E+00 -3.11E+01 -6.92E+00
Sanitary landfill 8.26E-03 3.61E-04 1.56E-02 9.88E-03 2.38E-03 4.34E-05 5.85E-05 1.35E-02 2.60E-03 2.22E-03 1.12E-02 1.63E-02
Sorting facility 5.61E-01 8.31E-05 1.17E-01 1.10E-01 1.92E-02 0.00E+00 1.97E-12 9.69E-03 4.67E-02 3.26E-03 1.26E+00 8.42E-02
Transportation
(bottom ash-
mineral landfill,
DK)
7.53E-04 2.77E-07 4.49E-04 2.88E-04 6.87E-05 0.00E+00 1.31E-14 5.63E-06 4.73E-05 2.99E-05 9.78E-03 2.90E-05
Transportation
(DK-UK)
2.33E-01 1.77E-03 2.09E-01 2.06E-01 3.25E-02 1.86E-04 1.38E-04 6.53E-02 2.75E-02 1.93E-02 2.54E+00 1.46E-01
Transportation
(residues-
landfill, UK)
1.08E-02 3.99E-06 6.46E-03 4.15E-03 9.89E-04 0.00E+00 1.88E-13 8.11E-05 6.81E-04 4.31E-04 1.41E-01 4.17E-04
Transportation
(sorting facility-
Vestforbrændin
g)
3.90E-03 1.43E-06 2.32E-03 1.49E-03 3.55E-04 0.00E+00 6.76E-14 2.91E-05 2.45E-04 1.55E-04 5.06E-02 1.50E-04
141
Table 93: Normalized results for scenario 3 (continue)
Name CC SOD POF TA EP FE DAR HTC HTNC ET DARF PM
mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE
Waste
Incineration,
DK
-9.38E-01 -4.04E-04 -1.14E+00 -1.60E+00 -1.83E-01 1.27E-05 1.42E-05 -7.51E-02 -3.81E-01 -1.43E-02 -4.90E+00 -6.19E-01
Packaging
production
2.93E-01 -1.83E-01 -3.48E+00 -4.33E+00 -3.01E-01 -5.36E-02 -1.57E+00 -3.22E+01 -5.63E+00 -6.07E+00 -1.64E+01 -5.61E+00
Production of
virgin foil
-3.04E+00 -8.19E-02 -1.69E+00 -1.67E+00 -1.24E-01 -2.87E-02 -8.88E-01 -1.70E+01 -2.48E+00 -3.16E+00 -1.16E+01 -1.87E+00
Transport of
cut foil (from
DK to foil
production
facility in UK )
1.45E-01 1.18E-03 1.33E-01 1.34E-01 2.07E-02 1.25E-04 9.24E-05 4.37E-02 1.77E-02 1.25E-02 1.55E+00 9.75E-02
Transportation
of foil (from
UK to
packaging
production
facility in DK)
4.02E-01 3.29E-03 3.70E-01 3.72E-01 5.75E-02 3.46E-04 2.57E-04 1.21E-01 4.92E-02 3.47E-02 4.30E+00 2.71E-01
Virgin PET
pellets
4.38E+01 6.87E-01 1.81E+01 2.25E+01 1.93E+00 1.99E-01 5.85E+00 1.21E+02 2.50E+01 2.27E+01 1.13E+02 2.65E+01
sum 3.23E+01 2.49E-01 8.18E+00 1.06E+01 1.06E+00 8.04E+00 1.70E+00 5.95E+01 2.71E+01 1.34E+01 6.00E+01 1.26E+01
savings -1.38E+01 -4.60E-01 -
1.11E+01
-
1.33E+01
-
1.10E+00
-1.41E-
01
-
4.20E+00
-
8.37E+01
-
1.53E+01
-
1.59E+01
-
6.40E+01
-
1.50E+01
burdens 4.60E+01 7.09E-01 1.93E+01 2.39E+01 2.15E+00 8.18E+00 5.90E+00 1.43E+02 4.25E+01 2.92E+01 1.24E+02 2.76E+01
142
Table 94: Normalized results for scenario 4
Name CC SOD POF TA EP FE DAR HTC HTNC ET DARF PM
mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE mPE
Automatic
dishwashing
1.60E+01 3.26E-02 2.27E+00 4.15E+00 3.57E-01 1.35E+01 2.55E-01 3.32E+01 6.85E+00 3.72E+00 1.84E+01 3.35E+00
Bottom ash
landfill
3.42E-04 9.04E-08 1.85E-04 1.42E-04 3.12E-05 3.70E-05 8.91E-14 9.38E-03 7.92E-05 3.35E-03 2.85E-03 6.18E-05
Collection and
transportation
7.75E-03 2.86E-06 5.33E-03 3.42E-03 8.33E-04 0.00E+00 1.35E-13 5.80E-05 4.87E-04 3.08E-04 1.01E-01 3.24E-04
Manual dish
washing
4.30E-01 1.47E-02 2.74E-01 5.35E-01 7.48E-02 7.58E+00 5.23E-02 2.13E+01 1.65E+01 6.09E+00 3.83E-01 4.79E-01
Transportation
(bottom ash-
landfill)
3.01E-04 1.11E-07 1.79E-04 1.15E-04 2.74E-05 0.00E+00 5.22E-15 2.25E-06 1.89E-05 1.19E-05 3.90E-03 1.16E-05
Waste
Incineration,
DK
-3.73E-01 -1.62E-04 -4.55E-01 -6.39E-01 -7.32E-02 5.04E-06 5.65E-06 -3.00E-02 -1.52E-01 -5.71E-03 -1.96E+00 -2.47E-01
sum 1.61E+01 4.72E-02 2.10E+00 4.05E+00 3.60E-01 2.11E+01 3.07E-01 5.45E+01 2.32E+01 9.81E+00 1.70E+01 3.58E+00
savings -3.73E-01 -1.62E-04 -4.55E-01 -6.39E-01 -7.32E-02 -3.00E-02 -1.52E-01 -5.71E-03 -1.96E+00 -2.47E-01
burdens 1.65E+01 4.74E-02 2.55E+00 4.69E+00 4.33E-01 2.11E+01 3.07E-01 5.46E+01 2.33E+01 9.82E+00 1.89E+01 3.83E+00
143
E3 Main process and substance contributors
E3.1 Main substance-contributors
Table 95: Main substance-contributors for each impact category, for the ‘’Virgin PET pellet’’, ‘’Sanitary landfill’’, ‘’Bottom ash landfill’’ processes.
Virgin PET pellets'
extraction
Sanitary landfill Bottom ash landfill
Largest burden Substance Compart
ment
Substance Compart
ment
Substance Compart
ment
Climate change Carbon
dioxide
Air Carbon
dioxide
fossil, air
Air Carbon
dioxide,
fossil
Air
Stratospheric
ozone
depletion
Methane,
bromochlo
rodifluoro,
Halon
1211
Air
Methane,
Bromotrifluo
ro, Halon
1301
Air Methane
trichloroflu
oro, HCF
11
Air
Photochemical
oxidant
formation
Nitrogen
oxides
Air Nitrogen
oxides
Air Nitrogen
oxides
Air
Terrestrial
acidification
Sulfur
dioxide
Air Nitrogen
oxides
Air Nitrogen
oxides
Air
Eutrophication
potential
Nitrogen
oxides
Air Nitrogen
oxides
Air Nitrogen
oxides
Air
Freshwater
eutrophication
Phosphate Water Phosphorous Soil Phosphorus Water
Depletion of
abiotic
resources
Gold Natural
resource,
ground
Chromium Natural
resource
Ground
Aluminum Natural
resource
Ground
Human
toxicity,
carcinogenic
Chromium Water Chromium Water Chromium Water
Human
toxicity, non-
carcinogenic
Zinc Air Mercury Air Arsenic,
ion
Water
Ecotoxicity,
total
Vanadium Air Chromium Water Copper, ion Water
Depletion of
abiotic
resources,
fossil
Crude oil Natural
resource,
ground
Crude oil Natural
resource
Ground
Crude oil Natural
resource
Ground
Particulate
matter
Sulfur
dioxide
Air Particulates
<2.5 um
Air Particulates
<2.5 um
Air
144
E3.2 Main contribution and saving sources in each process
E3.2.1 Non-toxic impact categories
Table 96: Main contribution and saving source in each process for each non-toxic impact category
Climate change Stratospheric
ozone depletion
Photochemical
oxidant
formation
Terrestrial
acidification
Eutrophication
potential
Freshwater
eutrophication
Particulate
matter
Largest Burden Saving Burden Saving Burden Saving Burden Saving Burden Saving Burden Saving Burden Saving
Manual
dishwashing
WWT - WWT - WWT - WWT - WWT - WWT - WWT -
PET
reprocessing
WWT Virgin
PET/PP
E Virgin
PET/PP
E Virgin
PET/PP
E Virgin
PET/PP
E Virgin
PET/PP
E Virgin
PET/PP
E Virgin
PET/PP
Sorting
facility
E - E - DF - E - DF - 0 - E -
Waste
incineration
E E WP E WP E PSE H PSE H PSE H PSE E
Automatic
dishwashing
E - DD - E
- E - E - DD - E -
Packaging
production
E Virgin
PET
E Virgin
PET
E Virgin
PET
E Virgin
PET
E Virgin
PET
E - E Virgin
PET
Production
of virgin
foil
E Virgin
PET
E Virgin
PET
E Virgin
PET
E Virgin
PET
E Virgin
PET
E Virgin
PET
E Virgin
PET
WWT: Wastewater treatment WP: Water process DD: Detergent for dishwashers H: Heat
PSE: Process specific emissions E: Electricity DF: Diesel (forklifts)
145
E3.2.2 Toxic impact categories
Table 97: Main contribution source of burdens and savings for each toxic category
Human toxicity,
carcinogenic
Human toxicity, non-
carcinogenic Ecotoxicity, total
Largest Burdens Savings Burdens Savings Burdens Savings
Manual
dishwashing
Wastewater
treatment
- Wastewater
treatment
- Wastewater
treatment
-
PET
reprocessing
Electricity Virgin
PET/PP
Electricity Virgin
PET/PP
Electricity Virgin
PET/PP
Sorting
facility
Electricity - Electricity - Diesel
(forklift)
Waste
incineration
Water
process
Electricity Specific
emissions
Electricity Limestone,
milled
Electricity
Automatic
dishwashing
Detergent
for
dishwasher
- Wastewater
treatment
- Detergent
for
dishwasher
-
Packaging
production
Electricity Virgin
PET
Electricity Virgin
PET
Electricity Virgin
PET
Production
of virgin
foil
Electricity Virgin
PET
Electricity Virgin
PET
Electricity Virgin
PET
E3.2.3 Resource depletion categories
Table 98: Main contribution source of burdens and savings for each Resource depletion category
Depletion of abiotic resources
Depletion of abiotic resources,
fossil
Largest Burdens Savings Burdens Savings
Manual
dishwashing
Wastewater
treatment
- Wastewater
treatment
-
PET
reprocessing
Electricity Avoided
production of
virgin PET/PP
Electricity Avoided
production of
virgin PET/PP
Sorting facility Diesel
(forklift)
- Diesel
(forklift)
-
Waste
incineration
Limestone,
milled
Electricity Water process Electricity
Automatic
dishwashing
Detergent for
dishwasher
- Electricity -
Packaging
production
Electricity Virgin PET Electricity Virgin PET
Production of
virgin foil
Electricity Virgin PET Electricity Virgin PET
146
E4 Stratospheric ozone depletion graph
Figure 66: Performance of the scenarios in Stratospheric ozone depletion category
Figure 67: Composition of stratospheric ozone depletion impacts
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4
mP
E/f.
u.
Stratospheric ozone depletion
-6.0E-01
-4.0E-01
-2.0E-01
0.0E+00
2.0E-01
4.0E-01
6.0E-01
8.0E-01
sc1 sc2 sc3 sc4
Stratospheric ozone depletion
mP
E/f.
u.
Composition of impacts in Stratospheric ozone deplition
Automatic dishwashing Virgin PET pellets Production of virgin foil
Packaging production Waste Incineration, DK Sorting facility
Sanitary landfill PET Reprocessing Manual dish washing
Collection and transportation Bottom ash landfill Total
147
Annex F: Economic Results
F1 Scenario 1
Figure 68: Life cycle costing for scenario 1
Cost Country Cost
(DKK)
Revenues
(DKK)
Net revenue
(DKK)
Foil production UK 1340 -1576 -236
Collection and
Transportation
UK,DK 55 -153 -98
Packaging production DK 1996 -2169 -172
Incineration DK 6340 -6340 0
Total 9731 -10238 -507
F2 Scenario 2
Figure 69: Life cycle costing for scenario 2
Costs Country Cost
(DKK)
Revenues
(DKK)
Net Revenues
(DKK)
Manual dish washing DK 423 0 423
Transportation and waste
collection
DK,UK 73 -206 -132
Sorting facility DK 50 -50 0
Waste Incineration DK 1563 -1563 0
PET reprocessing UK 111 -294 -183
Foil production UK 1340 -1576 -236
Packaging production DK 1996 -2169 -172
Sanitary Landfill UK 2.72 -9.51 -6.78
Total 5560 -5868 -307
F3 Scenario 3
Figure 70: Life cycle costing for scenario 3
Costs Country Cost
(DKK)
Revenues
(DKK)
Net Revenues
(DKK)
Manual dish washing DK 423 0 423
Transportation and waste
collection
DK,UK 73 -207 -132
Sorting facility DK 50 -50 0
Waste Incineration DK 1563 -1563 0
PET reprocessing UK 111 -320 -209
Foil production UK 1340 -1576 -236
Packaging production DK 1996 -2169 -172
Sanitary Landfill UK 2.97 -10.35 -7.38
Total 5560 -5896 -335
148
F4 Scenario 4
Figure 71: Life cycle costing for scenario 4
Costs Country Costs
(DKK)
Revenue
(DKK)
Net revenue
(DKK)
Foil production UK 134 -158 -24
Waste collection and
transportation
UK,DK 5 -15 -10
Packaging production DK 200 -217 -17
Manual dish washing DK 21 0 -21
Automatic dishwashing DK 27 0 -27
Waste incineration DK 622 -622 0
Total sc4 1010 -1012 -2
F5 Total
Table 99: Summarizing table for Life cycle net costing for all the Scenarios
Net cost sc1 sc2 sc3 sc4
Manual dish washing 0 423 423 21
Transportation and waste collection 73 117 110 7
Waste Incineration 6 2 2 1
PET Reprocessing 0 -183 -209 0
Packaging production 2169 2169 2169 217
Sanitary Landfill 0 9.41 10.25 0
Automatic dishwashing 0 0 0 27
Net cost total 2248 2537 2504 273
149
Annex G: Sensitivity analysis
G1 Sensitivity 1
G1.1 Adjusted modeling data
Table 100: Adjusted consumption amounts used for the modeling of the washing processes for 10 times of reuse
Scenario Type of
washing
Dirty
packaging
(1kg of
input)
Water (l) Energy
(kwh)
Cleanser
(kg)
Rinsing
agent
(kg)
Sens1.Sc4 manual 7.2 554.0
Sens1.Sc4 automatic 7.2 99.5 8.07 0.161 0.0184
G1.2 Composition comparisons
Aiming to a simpler comparison between the scenarios, the impacts were divided to
five contribution-sources: Upstream phase, Automatic dishwashing, Manual
dishwashing, Bottom ash landfill, Collection and transportation. The ‘’Upstream
processes’’ category includes all the processes mentioned in Chapter 4.2. In the
present case, ‘’Collection and transportation’’ category, represents only the waste
collection occurring in the disposal phase of the scenarios.
Figure 72: Comparison of the composition of Scenario 4 and Sesns1.Sc4, for the non-toxic categories
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
sc4
sen
s1.s
c4 sc4
sen
s1.s
c4 sc4
sen
s1.s
c4 sc4
sen
s1.s
c4 sc4
sen
s1.s
c4 sc4
sen
s1.s
c4 sc4
sen
s1.s
c4
CC SOD POF TA EP FE PM
mP
E/ S
cen
ario
Comparison of the non-toxic categories of Scenario 4 and Sens1.Sc4
Upstream processes Waste Incineration Manual dish washing
Collection and transportation Bottom ash landfill Automatic dishwashing
sum
150
Figure 73: Comparison of the composition of Scenario 4 and Sesns1.Sc4, for the toxic categories
Figure 74: Comparison of the composition of Scenario 4 and Sesns1.Sc4, for the resource depletion categories
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
sc4 sens1.sc4 sc4 sens1.sc4 sc4 sens1.sc4
Human toxicity, carcinogenic Human toxicity, non-carcinogenic
Ecotoxicity, total
mP
E/Sc
en
ario
Comparison of toxic categories of Scenario 4 and
Sens1.Sc4
Upstream processes Waste Incineration Manual dish washing
Collection and transportation Bottom ash landfill Automatic dishwashing
sum
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
sc4 sens1.sc4 sc4 sens1.sc4
` Depletion of abiotic resources
mP
E/Sc
en
ario
Comparison of recourse deplition categories of Scenario 4 and Sens1.Sc4
Upstream processes Waste Incineration Manual dish washing
Collection and transportation Bottom ash landfill Automatic dishwashing
sum
151
G2 Sensitivity 2
Figure 75: Composition of the single and multiple processed upstream phase
Figure 76: Impacts of Sensitivity 2 in non-toxic categories
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140M
-P S-P
M-P S-P
M-P S-P
M-P S-P
M-P S-P
M-P S-P
M-P S-P
M-P S-P
M-P S-P
M-P S-P
M-P S-P
M-P S-P
CC SOD POF TA EP FE DAR HTC HTNC ET DARF PM
mP
E/U
pst
ream
ph
ase
Composition of the single and multiple processed upstream phase
Virgin PET pellets Transportation of foil Transportation of cut foil
Production of virgin foil Packaging production sum
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
CC SOD POF TA EP FE PM
mP
E/Sc
en
ario
Impacts of Sensitivity 2 in non-toxic categories
Sens2.Sc1
Sens2.Sc2
Sens2.Sc3
Sens2.Sc4
152
Figure 77: Impacts of Sensitivity 2 in toxic categories
Figure 78: Impacts of Sensitivity 2 in resource depletion categories
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
HTC HTNC ET
mP
E/Sc
en
ario
Impacts of Sensitivity 2 in toxic categories
Sens2.Sc1
Sens2.Sc2
Sens2.Sc3
Sens2.Sc4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
DAR DARF
mP
E./S
cen
ario
Impacts of Sensitivity 2 in Recourse depletion caterory
Sens2.Sc1
Sens2.Sc2
Sens2.Sc3
Sens2.Sc4
