erer ananSystemsSystems forfor

JAYJAY SINGH'"SINGH'" andand A.RJCA.RJC CalCal CACA

ill­ABSTRACT:ABSTRACT: TheThe goalgoal ofof thisthis studystudy waswas toto conductconduct aa lifelife CycleCycle In­ventoryventory (Lei)(Lei) analysisanalysis basedbased comparisoncomparison ofof elevenprimaryelevenprimary containercontainer

offreshandand pillowpillow wrapwrap combinationscombinations forfor thethe distributiondistribution of fresh strawberriesstrawberries ThreeThree ofof thethe primaryprimary containerscontainers studiedstudied werewere paperpaper basedbased (molded(molded pulp,pulp, paperboardpaperboard andand corrugatedcorrugated fiberboard)fiberboard) andand threethree otherother contain­contain­ersers investigatedinvestigated werewere clamshellsclamshells oror punnetspunnets mademade ofof polyethylenepolyethylene terephthalateterephthalate (PET)(PET) andand recycledrecycled PETPET (rPET)(rPET) PillowPillow wrapswraps mademade ofof rPETrPET andand polylactldepolylactlde (PLA)(PLA) werewere alsoalso IncludedIncluded forfor allall punneUtraypunneUtray

containersstylestyle contaillers TheThe scopescope ofof thethe studystudy rangedranged fromfrom thethe exUactionexUaction ofof rawraw materials,materials, theirtheir processlllgprocesslllg andand formationformation forfor allall packagingpackaging com­com­ponents,ponents, productproduct fillingfilling andand distributiondistribution followedfollowed byby theirtheir end-of-lifeend-of-life scenariosscenarios TheThe scopescope includesincludes energyenergy Inputs/creditsandInputs/creditsand greenhousesgreenhouses gasesgases InIn COCO22 equivalentsequivalents followedfollowed byby thethe end-of-lifeend-of-life disposaldisposal TheThe functionalfunctional unitunit selectedselected waswas 0.450.45 kgkg ofof packagedpackaged strawberriesstrawberries deliv­deliv­eredered toto InstitutionalInstitutional customerscustomers (on-site(on-site users)users) andand retailersretailers withinwithin 402402 kilometerskilometers fromfrom thethe processingprocessing andand packingpacking plantplant withwith aa minimumminimum ofof oneone weekweek ofof shelfshelf lifelife atat deliverydelivery WhenWhen comparedcompared toto thethe traditionaltraditional PETPET clamshellclamshell stylestyle containers,containers, thethe tenten alternativealternative packagingpackaging sys­sys­temstems provideprovide betterbetter energyenergy usage/creditusage/credit andand GHGGHG resultsresults MoldedMolded pulppulp traystrays outperformedoutperformed allall alternatesalternates studiedstudied inin thisthis regard,regard, whilewhile thethe paperboardpaperboard andand corrugatedcorrugated fiberboardfiberboard systemssystems provideprovide veryvery practicalpractical andand environmentallyenvironmentally feasiblefeasible alternatives.alternatives. ScenarioScenario II forfor thethe end-of­end-of­life,life, whichwhich reflectsreflects aa closeclose ofof thethe MSWMSW treatmenttreatment ratesrates IIIIII thethe US,US, thethe paperboardpaperboard andand corrugatedcorrugated fiberboardfiberboard hadhad aa 3---4%3---4% andand 12-17%12-17% ImprovedImproved towardstowards tiletile energyenergy usage/creditusage/credit andGHGandGHG emissionsemissions respectivelyrespectively

1.01.0 INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

FFRESHRESH strawberriesstrawberries rankrank amongstamongst thethe mostmost freshfresh frufru itsits UnUn likeike\ mostmost stravlberries areare harvestedharvested andandotherother frufru Its,Its, strav/berries packedpacked

111111 aa fullyfully npenednpened statestate inin thethe field.field. DueDue toto theIrtheIr JltyJlty toto

•• AmhorAmhor toto whomwhom conespondcnceconespondcnce shouldshould bebe

JoumalJaumal ofof AppliedApplied PackagingPackaging Research,Research, VolVol 4,4, NoNo 4-0ctober4-0ctober 20102010 203203

1557-7244/10104203-191557-7244/10104203-19 ©© 20102010 DEStechDEStech Publications,Publications, IncInc

er anSystems for

CA

JAY SINGH'" and A.RJCCal

ABSTRACT: The goal of this study was to conduct a life Cycle In­ventory (Lei) analysis based comparison of elevenprimary containerand pillow wrap combinations for the distribution of fresh strawberriesThree of the primary containers studied were paper based (moldedpulp, paperboard and corrugated fiberboard) and three other contain­ers investigated were clamshells or punnets made of polyethyleneterephthalate (PET) and recycled PET (rPET) Pillow wraps madeof rPET and polylactlde (PLA) were also Included for all punneUtraystyle contaillers The scope of the study ranged from the exUaction ofraw materials, their processlllg and formation for all packaging com­ponents, product filling and distribution followed by their end-of-lifescenarios The scope includes energy Inputs/creditsand greenhousesgases In CO2 equivalents followed by the end-of-life disposal Thefunctional unit selected was 0.45 kg of packaged strawberries deliv­ered to Institutional customers (on-site users) and retailers within 402kilometers from the processing and packing plant with a minimum ofone week of shelf life at delivery When compared to the traditionalPET clamshell style containers, the ten alternative packaging sys­tems provide better energy usage/credit and GHG results Moldedpulp trays outperformed all alternates studied in this regard, while thepaperboard and corrugated fiberboard systems provide very practicaland environmentally feasible alternatives. Scenario I for the end-of­life, which reflects a close of the MSW treatment ratesIII the US, the paperboard and corrugated fiberboardhad a 3---4% and 12-17% Improved towards tile energyusage/credit andGHG emissions respectively

1.0 INTRODUCTION

FRESH strawberries rank amongst the most fresh fru itsUn like most other fru Its, strav/berries are harvested and packed

111 a fully npened state in the field. Due to theIr Jlty to

• Amhor to whom conespondcnce should be

Jaumal of Applied Packaging Research, Vol 4, No 4-0ctober 2010 203

1557-7244/10104203-19© 2010 DEStech Publications, Inc

er anSystems for

CA

JAY SINGH'" and A.RJCCal

ABSTRACT: The goal of this study was to conduct a life Cycle In­ventory (Lei) analysis based comparison of elevenprimary containerand pillow wrap combinations for the distribution of fresh strawberriesThree of the primary containers studied were paper based (moldedpulp, paperboard and corrugated fiberboard) and three other contain­ers investigated were clamshells or punnets made of polyethyleneterephthalate (PET) and recycled PET (rPET) Pillow wraps madeof rPET and polylactlde (PLA) were also Included for all punneUtraystyle contaillers The scope of the study ranged from the exUaction ofraw materials, their processlllg and formation for all packaging com­ponents, product filling and distribution followed by their end-of-lifescenarios The scope includes energy Inputs/creditsand greenhousesgases In CO2 equivalents followed by the end-of-life disposal Thefunctional unit selected was 0.45 kg of packaged strawberries deliv­ered to Institutional customers (on-site users) and retailers within 402kilometers from the processing and packing plant with a minimum ofone week of shelf life at delivery When compared to the traditionalPET clamshell style containers, the ten alternative packaging sys­tems provide better energy usage/credit and GHG results Moldedpulp trays outperformed all alternates studied in this regard, while thepaperboard and corrugated fiberboard systems provide very practicaland environmentally feasible alternatives. Scenario I for the end-of­life, which reflects a close of the MSW treatment ratesIII the US, the paperboard and corrugated fiberboardhad a 3---4% and 12-17% Improved towards tile energyusage/credit andGHG emissions respectively

1.0 INTRODUCTION

FRESH strawberries rank amongst the most fresh fru itsUn like most other fru Its, strav/berries are harvested and packed

111 a fully npened state in the field. Due to theIr Jlty to

• Amhor to whom conespondcnce should be

Jaumal of Applied Packaging Research, Vol 4, No 4-0ctober 2010 203

1557-7244/10104203-19© 2010 DEStech Publications, Inc

atat andand comparingcomparing thethe manufacturing,manufacturing, andand dIstnbutiondIstnbution relatedrelated envIronmentalenvIronmental ilnpactsilnpacts ofof eleveneleven

containercontainer andand pillowpillow wrapwrap combinationscombinations forfor thethe distributiondistribution ofof strawberries.strawberries. ThreeThree ofof thethe primaryprimary containerscontainers studiedstudied werewere paperpaper

paperboardpaperboard andand corrugatedcorrugated fiberboard)fiberboard) andand threethree oth­oth­werewere clamshellsclamshells oror punnetspunnets mademade ofof polyeth­polyeth­

(PET)(PET) andand recycledrecycled PETPET (rPET).(rPET). TheThe pi]]owpi]]ow wrapswraps werewere mademade ofof fPETfPET andand PolylactidePolylactide (PLA).(PLA). AA lifelife cyclecycle inven­inven­

CL,Cl)CL,Cl) analysisanalysis waswas conductedconducted forfor comparingcomparing thethe environmentalenvironmental containers.containers. LClLCl quantifiesquantifies materialmaterial use,use, energyenergy use,use,

discharges,discharges, andand wasteswastes associatedassociated withwith eacheach stagestage ofof aa

USA,29.17%USA,29.17%

2.72%2.72%

....onTlgrHfonTlgrHf 4.00%4.00%

Spain,Spain, 6.90%6.90%

S.S. Korea.Korea. 5.23%5.23% Turkey.Turkey. 6.25%6.25%

FIgureFIgure 1.1. WorldWorld StrawberryStrawberry Production,Production, 20072007 [2].[2].

at and comparing the manufacturing,and dIstnbution related envIronmental ilnpacts of eleven

container and pillow wrap combinations for the distribution ofstrawberries. Three of the primary containers studied were paper

paperboard and corrugated fiberboard) and three oth­were clamshells or punnets made of polyeth­

(PET) and recycled PET (rPET). The pi]]ow wrapswere made of fPET and Polylactide (PLA). A life cycle inven­

CL,Cl) analysis was conducted for comparing the environmentalcontainers. LCl quantifies material use, energy use,

discharges, and wastes associated with each stage of a

USA,29.17%

2.72%

..onTlgrHf 4.00%

Spain, 6.90%

S. Korea. 5.23% Turkey. 6.25%

FIgure 1. World Strawberry Production, 2007 [2].

at and comparing the manufacturing,and dIstnbution related envIronmental ilnpacts of eleven

container and pillow wrap combinations for the distribution ofstrawberries. Three of the primary containers studied were paper

paperboard and corrugated fiberboard) and three oth­were clamshells or punnets made of polyeth­

(PET) and recycled PET (rPET). The pi]]ow wrapswere made of fPET and Polylactide (PLA). A life cycle inven­

CL,Cl) analysis was conducted for comparing the environmentalcontainers. LCl quantifies material use, energy use,

discharges, and wastes associated with each stage of a

USA,29.17%

2.72%

..onTlgrHf 4.00%

Spain, 6.90%

S. Korea. 5.23% Turkey. 6.25%

FIgure 1. World Strawberry Production, 2007 [2].

2,0002,000

22 OJOJCC '500·'500·..~~ '.'.

KK

oo

FigureFigure 2.2. SummarySummary ofof LCILCI ResultsResults forfor RPCRPC andand ORCORC ScenariosScenarios (for(for 10001000 tonstons ofof straw­straw­berriesberries shipped)shipped) (4].(4].

productproduct systemsystem overover itsits IIifeife cycle,cycle, fromfrom rawraw materIamaterIa II extracttonextractton throughthrough materialmaterial processing,processing, productproduct fabrication,fabrication, use,use, reusereuse oror recycrecyc IIing,ing, andand ultimateultimate disposaldisposal [3].[3].

VeryVery fe\vfe\v pastpast studiesstudies havehave researchedresearched thethe environmentalenvironmental issuesissues re­re­latedlated toto packagingpackaging forfor strawberries.strawberries. AnAn LCILCI analysisanalysis studystudy comparedcompared reusablereusable plasticplastic containerscontainers (RPC)(RPC) toto single-usesingle-use displaydisplay readyready paperpaper cor­cor­rugatedrugated traystrays (ORC)(ORC) forfor packingpacking andand shippingshipping oftenoften categoriescategories ofof freshfresh fruitsfruits andand vegetables.vegetables. BasedBased onon thethe scopescope ofof thethe study,study, itit waswas reportedreported thatthat overalloverall thethe RPCsRPCs requiredrequired 39%39% lessless energy,energy, producedproduced 950/0950/0 lessless totaltotal solidsolid wastewaste andand generatedgenerated 29%29% lesserlesser househouse JIG)JIG) [4[4 J.J. 22 showsshows thethe energy,energy, soso IIidid \vaste\vaste CC II resuresu ItsIts dIstributiondIstribution ofstravlberrlesofstravlberrles forfor thethe \\\10\\\10 TheThe valuesvalues reportedreported forfor ORCsORCs werewere basedbased onon thethe foldedfolded boxesboxes andand thosethose forfor RRPCsPCs \vere\vere basedbased onon lossloss ratesrates reported.reported. TheThe conservativeconservative scenarioscenario forfor RPCsRPCs InvolvesInvolves 75'%75'% ofof averageaverage reusereuse rate,rate, tWicetWice thethe averageaverage lossloss andand back-back-haulhaul distancedistance andand thatthat forfor ORCsORCs lflcludeslflcludes ]]00/000/0 II ItsIts forfor RPCsRPCs werewere alsoalso repol1edrepol1ed assummgassummg 20%20% reductionreduction hacklmulhacklmuJ distancedistance ofof emptyempty contaInerscontaIners

SeveralSeveral otherother studIesstudIes havehave focusedfocused onon thethe envIronmentalenvIronmental oror cultivationcultivation andand transporUltiontransporUltion ofof strawbelTlesstrawbelTles ItIt isis estmlaledestmlaled

onon aa broadbroad 50%50% ofof foodfood GHGsGHGs itteditted duringduring thethe agricultureagriculture vllthvllth thethe remaIningremaIning GIIGsGIIGs aSSOCiatedaSSOCiated WithWith

2,000

2OJC '500·.~ '.

K

o

Figure 2. Summary of LCI Results for RPC and ORC Scenarios (for 1000 tons of straw­berries shipped) (4].

product system over its Iife cycle, from raw materIa I extractton throughmaterial processing, product fabrication, use, reuse or recyc Iing, andultimate disposal [3].

Very fe\v past studies have researched the environmental issues re­lated to packaging for strawberries. An LCI analysis study comparedreusable plastic containers (RPC) to single-use display ready paper cor­rugated trays (ORC) for packing and shipping often categories of freshfruits and vegetables. Based on the scope of the study, it was reportedthat overall the RPCs required 39% less energy, produced 950/0 lesstotal solid waste and generated 29% lesser house JIG)[4J. 2 shows the energy, so Iid \vaste C I resu ItsdIstribution ofstravlberrles for the \\\10 Thevalues reported for ORCs were based on thefolded boxes and those for RPCs \vere based onloss rates reported. The conservative scenario for RPCs Involves 75'%of average reuse rate, tWice the average loss and back-haul distance and that for ORCs lflcludes ]00/0 I Itsfor RPCs were also repol1ed assummg 20% reduction hacklmuJdistance of empty contaIners

Several other studIes have focused on the envIronmental orcultivation and transporUltion of strawbelTles It is estmlaled

on a broad 50% of food GHGs ittedduring the agriculture vllth the remaIning GIIGs aSSOCiated With

2,000

2OJC '500·.~ '.

K

o

Figure 2. Summary of LCI Results for RPC and ORC Scenarios (for 1000 tons of straw­berries shipped) (4].

product system over its Iife cycle, from raw materIa I extractton throughmaterial processing, product fabrication, use, reuse or recyc Iing, andultimate disposal [3].

Very fe\v past studies have researched the environmental issues re­lated to packaging for strawberries. An LCI analysis study comparedreusable plastic containers (RPC) to single-use display ready paper cor­rugated trays (ORC) for packing and shipping often categories of freshfruits and vegetables. Based on the scope of the study, it was reportedthat overall the RPCs required 39% less energy, produced 950/0 lesstotal solid waste and generated 29% lesser house JIG)[4J. 2 shows the energy, so Iid \vaste C I resu ItsdIstribution ofstravlberrles for the \\\10 Thevalues reported for ORCs were based on thefolded boxes and those for RPCs \vere based onloss rates reported. The conservative scenario for RPCs Involves 75'%of average reuse rate, tWice the average loss and back-haul distance and that for ORCs lflcludes ]00/0 I Itsfor RPCs were also repol1ed assummg 20% reduction hacklmuJdistance of empty contaIners

Several other studIes have focused on the envIronmental orcultivation and transporUltion of strawbelTles It is estmlaled

on a broad 50% of food GHGs ittedduring the agriculture vllth the remaIning GIIGs aSSOCiated With

206206

atat thethe carboncarbon t"Ar't-t"Ar't-............ '·'nt"'·'nt"

strawberriesstrawberries grO\\llgrO\\ll InIn

asas anan PETPET asas thethe UnIt,UnIt,

mostmost commoncommon GHGsGHGs emittedemitted fromfrom (C0(C022),), nitrousnitrous oxideoxide (N20)(N20)

UUU.UIF,0UUU.UIF,0 concludedconcluded thatthat thethe largestlargest ofof attributedattributed transportationtransportation toto consumerconsumer andand

andand consumerconsumer shoppingshopping (65(65 gg COCO22 eq.)eq.) andand .n''A,nnn.n''A,nnn (60(60 COCO22 \vhile\vhile agrochemicalsagrochemicals (40(40 gg COCO22

aa minorminor rolerole [6].[6]. AA emis­researchresearch conductedconducted aa comparativecomparative studystudy ofof thethe COCO22 emis­

siemssiems associatedassociated WIthWIth freshfresh vegetablesvegetables andand fruitsfruits producedproduced locallylocally inin AustriaAustria versusversus AmongAmong thethe fivefive productsproducts IncludedIncluded InIn thISthIS

strawberriesstrawberries importedimported fromfrom SpainSpain andand thosethose growngrown domesticallydomestically inin LowerLower AustriaAustria werewere evaluated.evaluated. TheThe scopescope ofof thisthis projectproject waswas basedbased onon thethe associatedassociated emissionsemissions relatedrelated toto road,road, seasea andand airair distri­distri­

TheThe COCO22 emissionsemissions forfor thethe domesticdomestic strawberriesstrawberries (6.9(6.9 gg COCO22 eq.)eq.) toto bebe approximatelyapproximately 30/030/0 asas comparedcompared toto thosethose associatedassociated

withwith thethe importsimports (264.4(264.4 gg COCO22 eq.)eq.) [7].[7]. AA similarsimilar studystudy asas aboveabove waswas conductedconducted inin SpainSpain toto evaluateevaluate thethe

"'11""''-''\1"'11""''-''\1 savedsaved andand emissionsemissions avoidedavoided duedue toto sourcingsourcing ofof fruitsfruits andand veg­veg­etablesetables fromfrom locallocal farmersfarmers (within(within 200200 kmkm radius)radius) ratherrather thanthan distantdistant sources.sources. LongLong stemstem strawberriesstrawberries diddid notnot havehave anyany impactimpact duedue toto un­un­availableavailable locallocal clin1ateclin1ate forfor theirtheir cultivationcultivation andand thesethese numbersnumbers werewere re­re­

asas 169169 tonstons ofof oiloil equivalentequivalent andand 425425 tonstons ofof COCO22 equivalentsequivalents forfor thethe andand emissionsemissions respectiv~lxrespectiv~lx [~].[~].

2.02.0 GOAL,GOAL, SCOPESCOPE ANDAND BOUNDARIESBOUNDARIES

2.12.1 Goal,Goal, ScopeScope andand FunctionalFunctional UnitUnit

'rl1e'rl1e compar­ofof thisthis studystudy waswas toto conductconduct anan LCILCI analysisanalysis basedbased compar­isonison ofof eleveneleven primaryprimary containercontainer andand pillowpillow wrapwrap combinationscombinations forfor thethe distributiondistribution ofof strawberries.strawberries. ThreeThree ofof thethe primaryprimary containerscontainers stud­stud­

fiber­iedied werewere paperpaper basedbased (molded(molded pulp,pulp, paperboardpaperboard andand con"ugatedcon"ugated fiber­board)board) pUll­otherother containerscontainers investigatedinvestigated werewere clamshelclamshel IsIs oror pUll­netsnets mademade ofof andand 3).3). PiJlowPiJlow wrapswraps mademade ofof rPETrPET andand PLAPLA werewere includedincluded forfor allall punnet/traypunnet/tray stylestyle containers.containers. TheThe scopescope

study ranged the extraction of raw materials, their process­study ranged the extraction of raw materials, their process­

206

at the carbon t"Ar't-...... '·'nt"

strawberries grO\\ll In

as anPET as the UnIt,

most common GHGs emitted from(C02), nitrous oxide (N20)

UUU.UIF,0 concluded that the largest ofattributed transportation to consumer and

and consumer shopping (65 g CO2 eq.) andCO2 \vhile agrochemicals (40 g CO2

the

.n''A,nnn (60

a minor role [6].A research conducted a comparative study of the CO2 emis-

siems associated WIth fresh vegetables and fruits produced locally inAustria versus Among the five products Included In thIS

strawberries imported from Spain and those grown domesticallyin Lower Austria were evaluated. The scope of this project was basedon the associated emissions related to road, sea and air distri­

The CO2 emissions for the domestic strawberries (6.9 g CO2 eq.)to be approximately 30/0 as compared to those associated

with the imports (264.4 g CO2 eq.) [7].A similar study as above was conducted in Spain to evaluate the

"'11""''-''\1 saved and emissions avoided due to sourcing of fruits and veg­etables from local farmers (within 200 km radius) rather than distantsources. Long stem strawberries did not have any impact due to un­available local clin1ate for their cultivation and these numbers were re­

as 169 tons of oil equivalent and 425 tons of CO2 equivalents forand emissions respectiv~lx [~].

2.0 GOAL, SCOPE AND BOUNDARIES

2.1 Goal, Scope and Functional Unit

'rl1e of this study was to conduct an LCI analysis based compar-ison of eleven primary container and pillow wrap combinations for thedistribution of strawberries. Three of the primary containers stud­ied were paper based (molded pulp, paperboard and con"ugated fiber-board) other containers investigated were clamshel Is or pUll-nets made of and 3). PiJlow wraps made of rPET andPLA were included for all punnet/tray style containers. The scope

study ranged the extraction of raw materials, their process-

206

at the carbon t"Ar't-...... '·'nt"

strawberries grO\\ll In

as anPET as the UnIt,

most common GHGs emitted from(C02), nitrous oxide (N20)

UUU.UIF,0 concluded that the largest ofattributed transportation to consumer and

and consumer shopping (65 g CO2 eq.) andCO2 \vhile agrochemicals (40 g CO2

the

.n''A,nnn (60

a minor role [6].A research conducted a comparative study of the CO2 emis-

siems associated WIth fresh vegetables and fruits produced locally inAustria versus Among the five products Included In thIS

strawberries imported from Spain and those grown domesticallyin Lower Austria were evaluated. The scope of this project was basedon the associated emissions related to road, sea and air distri­

The CO2 emissions for the domestic strawberries (6.9 g CO2 eq.)to be approximately 30/0 as compared to those associated

with the imports (264.4 g CO2 eq.) [7].A similar study as above was conducted in Spain to evaluate the

"'11""''-''\1 saved and emissions avoided due to sourcing of fruits and veg­etables from local farmers (within 200 km radius) rather than distantsources. Long stem strawberries did not have any impact due to un­available local clin1ate for their cultivation and these numbers were re­

as 169 tons of oil equivalent and 425 tons of CO2 equivalents forand emissions respectiv~lx [~].

2.0 GOAL, SCOPE AND BOUNDARIES

2.1 Goal, Scope and Functional Unit

'rl1e of this study was to conduct an LCI analysis based compar-ison of eleven primary container and pillow wrap combinations for thedistribution of strawberries. Three of the primary containers stud­ied were paper based (molded pulp, paperboard and con"ugated fiber-board) other containers investigated were clamshel Is or pUll-nets made of and 3). PiJlow wraps made of rPET andPLA were included for all punnet/tray style containers. The scope

study ranged the extraction of raw materials, their process-

LifeLife

CorrugatedCorrugated PunnetPunnet PaperboardPaperboard PunnetPunnet FiberFiber

PET/rPETPET/rPET ClamshellClamshell rPETrPET PunnetPunnet FigureFigure 3.3. PrimaryPrimary PackagesPackages Studied.Studied.

inging andand formatIOnformatIOn forfor allall packaglllgpackaglllg components,components, productproduct fJlllngfJlllng andand distributiondistribution follmvedfollmved byby theirtheir end-of-lifeend-of-life scenarios.scenarios. TheThe scopescope includesincludes energyenergy inputsinputs andand credcred itsits andand greenhousesgreenhouses gasesgases ll1ll1 COCO 22 eqeq uuivaiva lentslents followedfollowed byby thethe end-of-lifeend-of-life disposal.disposal. TheThe functionalfunctional unitunit selectedselected waswas 0.450.45 kgkg ofof packagedpackaged stra\vberriesstra\vberries deldel iveredivered toto institutionalinstitutional custonlerscustonlers (on-site(on-site users)users) andand retailersretailers withwith inin 402402 kiki lometerslometers fromfrom thethe process1l1gprocess1l1g andand packingpacking plantplant withwith aa minimumminimum ofof oneone weekweek ofof shelfshelf lifelife atat delivery.delivery.

FigureFigure 44 showsshows twotwo ofof thesethese containerscontainers withwith thethe stravlbernes.stravlbernes. WhJleWhJle thethe PET/rPETPET/rPET clamshellsclamshells dodo notnot requirerequire anyany moremore packagmg,packagmg, thethe ['PE'T['PE'T andand paperpaper basedbased punnetspunnets werewere assumedassumed wrappedwrapped ll1ll1 rPETrPET oror PLAPLA fIlmfIlm "pillow"."pillow". TheThe paperboardpaperboard andand corrugatedcorrugated flberboardflberboard punnetspunnets prOVIdeprOVIde aa "b1l1board","b1l1board", forfor promotIngpromotIng thethe \vIthllL\vIthllL IIII ThISThIS IllvesugatedIllvesugated dIsplaydIsplay contaInerscontaIners (DR(DR thethe transponationtransponation unitunit (Figure(Figure 5)5)

CorrugatedCorrugated PunnetPunnet \vith\vith FilmFilm "Pillow""Pillow"

FigureFigure 4.4. PackedPacked PunnetPunnet andand ClamS/JellClamS/Jell StyleStyle ContainerContainer Exarnples.Exarnples.

Life

Corrugated Punnet Paperboard Punnet Fiber

PET/rPET Clamshell rPET PunnetFigure 3. Primary Packages Studied.

ing and formatIOn for all packaglllg components, product fJlllng anddistribution follmved by their end-of-life scenarios. The scope includesenergy inputs and cred its and greenhouses gases ll1 CO 2 eq uiva lentsfollowed by the end-of-life disposal. The functional unit selected was0.45 kg of packaged stra\vberries del ivered to institutional custonlers(on-site users) and retailers with in 402 ki lometers from the process1l1gand packing plant with a minimum of one week of shelf life at delivery.

Figure 4 shows two of these containers with the stravlbernes. WhJlethe PET/rPET clamshells do not require any more packagmg, the ['PE'Tand paper based punnets were assumed wrapped ll1 rPET or PLA fIlm"pillow". The paperboard and corrugated flberboard punnets prOVIdea "b1l1board", for promotIng the \vIthllL IIThIS Illvesugated dIsplay contaIners (DRthe transponation unit (Figure 5)

Corrugated Punnet \vith Film "Pillow"

Figure 4. Packed Punnet and ClamS/Jell Style Container Exarnples.

Life

Corrugated Punnet Paperboard Punnet Fiber

PET/rPET Clamshell rPET PunnetFigure 3. Primary Packages Studied.

ing and formatIOn for all packaglllg components, product fJlllng anddistribution follmved by their end-of-life scenarios. The scope includesenergy inputs and cred its and greenhouses gases ll1 CO 2 eq uiva lentsfollowed by the end-of-life disposal. The functional unit selected was0.45 kg of packaged stra\vberries del ivered to institutional custonlers(on-site users) and retailers with in 402 ki lometers from the process1l1gand packing plant with a minimum of one week of shelf life at delivery.

Figure 4 shows two of these containers with the stravlbernes. WhJlethe PET/rPET clamshells do not require any more packagmg, the ['PE'Tand paper based punnets were assumed wrapped ll1 rPET or PLA fIlm"pillow". The paperboard and corrugated flberboard punnets prOVIdea "b1l1board", for promotIng the \vIthllL IIThIS Illvesugated dIsplay contaIners (DRthe transponation unit (Figure 5)

Corrugated Punnet \vith Film "Pillow"

Figure 4. Packed Punnet and ClamS/Jell Style Container Exarnples.

jj208208 andand

FigureFigure 5.5. DIsplayDIsplay ReadyReady CorrugatedCorrugated ShipperShipper

2.22.2 MetbodsMetbods

,'YH'>,,,,r\i'·V ofof ide­It'<.'It'<.' ,'YH'>,,,Ir\i'·v studystudy waswas adoptedadopted fromfrom IISOSO 1404014040 gugu ide­

2.02.0 softwaresoftware systemsystem (Allied(Allied DevelopmentDevelopment Corp.,Corp., USA),USA), anan LCILCI softvvaresoftvvare program,program, andand CAPECAPE PACKPACK

v2.04v2.04 (Cape(Cape Group,Group, Inc.,Inc., Piscataway,Piscataway, NJ,NJ, USA)USA) palletpallet opti-opti-IIIIII izationization softwaresoftware werewere usedused forfor thisthis study.study. TheThe SavvyPack®SavvyPack® systemsystem

equiva­lneasureslneasures energyenergy usageusage andand recoveryrecovery andand GHGGHG emissionsemissions (C0(C022 equiva­eacheach ofof thethe supplysupply chain,chain, includingincluding resinresin andand otherother

rawraw materialmaterial production,production, rawraw materialmaterial transport,transport, packagepackage manufacture,manufacture, productproduct filling,filling, andand deliverydelivery toto thethe retailersretailers oror institutionalinstitutional customers.customers. TheThe "United"United StatesStates 3"3" datadata setset optionoption offeredoffered byby thethe LeILeI softwaresoftware waswas selectedselected forfor thisthis study.study. ThisThis datadata setset isis basedbased onon productionproduction processesprocesses inin thethe UnitedUnited StatesStates andand includesincludes biomassbiomass energyenergy credits.credits. TheThe CAPECAPE PACKPACK designdesign softwaresoftware consistsconsists ofof palletpallet patternpattern optimizationoptimization tools.tools. ItsIts

siz­featuresfeatures inc]inc] udeude thethe abiLityabiLity toto buildbuild paLlelpaLlel patteJ:1:LC\,.patteJ:1:LC\,. £.rea1.e£.rea1.e JJ£WJJ£W ['...a.~['...a.~ siz­es,es, newnew productproduct packagespackages andand consolidateconsolidate casecase sizes.sizes.

TheThe rawraw materialmaterial datadata requiredrequired forfor thethe inventoryinventory analysisanalysis forfor thethe fol­fol­sof'hvare:lowinglowing waswas obtainedobtained fromfrom thethe SavvyPack®SavvyPack® sofhvare: PET/rPETPET/rPET (clam­(clam­

shells/punnet);shells/punnet); paperpaper fiberfiber pulp,pulp, paperboardpaperboard andand corrugatedcorrugated fiberboardfiberboard (punnets),(punnels), corrugatedcorrugated fiberboardfiberboard (ORCs);(ORCs); rPETrPET andand PLAPLA filmfilm (Pillows);(Pillows); bandband (PET)(PET) andand woodwood (pallets).(pallets). ThisThis softwaresoftware sourcessources thethe datadata andand keepskeeps itit updatedupdated toto withinwithin threethree monthsmonths fromfrom thethe CanadianCanadian RawRaw MaterialsMaterials Database,Database, EuropeanEuropean AluminumAluminum Association,Association, EuropeanEuropean Com­Com­mission,mission, FinnishFinnish EnvironmentEnvironment Institute,Institute, InternationalInternational IronIron andand SteelSteel In-In-

NationalNational RenewableRenewable EnergyEnergy Lab,Lab, EnvironmentalEnvironmental DefenseDefense FundFund PaperPaper Calculator,Calculator, PlasticsPlastics Europe,Europe, andand SustainableSustainable ProductProduct InformationInformation NetworkNetwork forfor thethe Environment.Environment.

AA scorecardscorecard methodologymethodology toto provideprovide aa comparisoncomparison betweenbetween thethe threethree

208 j and

2.2 Metbods

Figure 5. DIsplay Ready Corrugated Shipper

It'<.' ,'YH'>,,,Ir\i'·v of study was adopted from ISO 14040 gu ide-

2.0 software system (Allied Development Corp.,USA), an LCI softvvare program, and CAPE PACK

v2.04 (Cape Group, Inc., Piscataway, NJ, USA) pallet opti-III ization software were used for this study. The SavvyPack® systemlneasures energy usage and recovery and GHG emissions (C02 equiva-

each of the supply chain, including resin and otherraw material production, raw material transport, package manufacture,product filling, and delivery to the retailers or institutional customers.The "United States 3" data set option offered by the LeI software wasselected for this study. This data set is based on production processesin the United States and includes biomass energy credits. The CAPEPACK design software consists of pallet pattern optimization tools. Itsfeatures inc] ude the abiLity to build paLlel patteJ:1:LC\,. £.rea1.e JJ£W ['...a.~ siz-es, new product packages and consolidate case sizes.

The raw material data required for the inventory analysis for the fol­lowing was obtained from the SavvyPack® sofhvare: PET/rPET (clam­shells/punnet); paper fiber pulp, paperboard and corrugated fiberboard(punnels), corrugated fiberboard (ORCs); rPET and PLA film (Pillows);band (PET) and wood (pallets). This software sources the dataand keeps it updated to within three months from the Canadian RawMaterials Database, European Aluminum Association, European Com­mission, Finnish Environment Institute, International Iron and Steel In-

National Renewable Energy Lab, Environmental Defense FundPaper Calculator, Plastics Europe, and Sustainable Product InformationNetwork for the Environment.

A scorecard methodology to provide a comparison between the three

208 j and

2.2 Metbods

Figure 5. DIsplay Ready Corrugated Shipper

It'<.' ,'YH'>,,,Ir\i'·v of study was adopted from ISO 14040 gu ide-

2.0 software system (Allied Development Corp.,USA), an LCI softvvare program, and CAPE PACK

v2.04 (Cape Group, Inc., Piscataway, NJ, USA) pallet opti-III ization software were used for this study. The SavvyPack® systemlneasures energy usage and recovery and GHG emissions (C02 equiva-

each of the supply chain, including resin and otherraw material production, raw material transport, package manufacture,product filling, and delivery to the retailers or institutional customers.The "United States 3" data set option offered by the LeI software wasselected for this study. This data set is based on production processesin the United States and includes biomass energy credits. The CAPEPACK design software consists of pallet pattern optimization tools. Itsfeatures inc] ude the abiLity to build paLlel patteJ:1:LC\,. £.rea1.e JJ£W ['...a.~ siz-es, new product packages and consolidate case sizes.

The raw material data required for the inventory analysis for the fol­lowing was obtained from the SavvyPack® sofhvare: PET/rPET (clam­shells/punnet); paper fiber pulp, paperboard and corrugated fiberboard(punnels), corrugated fiberboard (ORCs); rPET and PLA film (Pillows);band (PET) and wood (pallets). This software sources the dataand keeps it updated to within three months from the Canadian RawMaterials Database, European Aluminum Association, European Com­mission, Finnish Environment Institute, International Iron and Steel In-

National Renewable Energy Lab, Environmental Defense FundPaper Calculator, Plastics Europe, and Sustainable Product InformationNetwork for the Environment.

A scorecard methodology to provide a comparison between the three

allall us­us­mgmg scorecardsscorecards toto packagedpackaged ofof AA scorecardscorecard maymay

thethe strategIcstrategIc targetstargets andand anyany narrattvenarrattve \Val-t'v1art's\Val-t'v1art's ~J{"_"\.{CI""'''~J{"_"\.{CI""'''

troduced [ov\'s[ov\'s supplierssuppliers tototraduced inin thethe USUS tiltil 20062006 asas aa measurementmeasurement tooltool thatthat supplIers, motnesmotnesevaluateevaluate themselvesthemselves relatIverelatIve toto otherother supplltTs, basedbased onon

packagmg toto enterenter.. InIn thethe paekagmg scorecardscorecard system,system, thethe supplierssuppliers areare informatIoninformatIon regardingregarding thethe ofof eacheach productproduct suppliedsupplied toto \Val­\Val­

Mart.Mart. EachEach productproduct packagll1gpackagll1g ISIS thenthen JJ InIn termsterms ofof dddYerentdYerent merncsmerncs ofof sLlstamabilitysLlstamability thatthat IncludeInclude GHGGHG emissionsemissions producedproduced perper IonIon ofof agmg,agmg, sizesize ofof packagIng,packagIng, useuse ofof rawraw matenals,matenals, useuse ofof rene\vablerene\vable energy,energy, recycledrecycled content,content, transportationtransportation imim pacts,pacts, innovauol1,innovauol1, etcetc [9[9 J.J.

SavvyPack®SavvyPack® softwaresoftware allowsallows usersusers toto createcreate aa snndarsnndar scorecardscorecard wherewhere thethe inbuiltinbuilt matricesmatrices areare populatedpopulated durmgdurmg data'data' thethe L,elL,el analysis.analysis. TheThe scorecardscorecard resultsresults forfor thethe eleveneleven packaglllgpackaglllg systemssystems stud­stud­iedied werewere createdcreated vlithvlith thethe followlI1gfollowlI1g rnatricesrnatrices andand thethe weightedweighted averageaverage forfor eacheach basedbased closelyclosely toto thatthat utilizedutilized byby Wal-Mart:Wal-Mart:

01115%15% basedbased all PurchasedPurchased MaterialMaterial GHGGHG

01115%15% basedbased all SustainableSustainable MaterialMaterial

15%15% basedbased onon PackagePackage toto ProductProduct RatioRatio

150/0150/0 basedbased onon CubeCube UtilizationUtilization

100/0100/0 basedbased onon TransportationTransportation DistanceDistance

100/0100/0 basedbased onon RecycledRecycled ContentContent

100/0100/0 basedbased onon RecoveryRecovery

•• 50/050/0 basedbased 011011 ReneviableReneviable

•• 50/050/0 basedbased onon EnergyEnergy InnovationInnovation

ThisThis scorecardscorecard proVIdesproVIdes valuablevaluable toto anyany ler'vvholer'vvho havehave toto meetmeet mandatesmandates retaIlersretaIlers andand cancan allowallow themthem toto dd II rft.:rc:nlrft.:rc:nl packagingpackaging optionsoptions anyany

2.32.3 AllocationAllocation

AccordmgAccordmg toto ISOISO 14040,14040, allocatlonallocatlon !s!s deflncddeflIled lll­thethe lll­putput oror flowsflows ofof lim!UI1l1 processprocess toto thethe underunder

OutingOuting thethe LCA,ofof LeA, allocationallocation maymay bebe necessarynecessary whenwhen

all us-mg scorecards to packagedof A scorecard may

the strategIc targetsand any narrattve \Val-t'v1art's ~J{"_"\.{CI""'''

traduced in the US til 2006 as a measurement tool that [ov\'s suppliers to

evaluate themselves relatIve to other supplltTs, based on motnes. In the paekagmg scorecard system, the suppliers are to enter

informatIon regarding the of each product supplied to \Val­

Mart. Each product packagll1g IS then J In terms of ddYerent merncsof sLlstamability that Include GHG emissions produced per Ion ofagmg, size of packagIng, use of raw matenals, use of rene\vable energy,recycled content, transportation im pacts, innovauol1, etc [9 J.

SavvyPack® software allows users to create a snndar scorecardwhere the inbuilt matrices are populated durmg data' the L,elanalysis. The scorecard results for the eleven packaglllg systems stud­ied were created vlith the followlI1g rnatrices and the weighted averagefor each based closely to that utilized by Wal-Mart:

15% based all Purchased Material GHG

15% based all Sustainable Material

15% based on Package to Product Ratio

150/0 based on Cube Utilization

100/0 based on Transportation Distance

100/0 based on Recycled Content

100/0 based on Recovery

• 50/0 based 011 Reneviable

• 50/0 based on Energy Innovation

This scorecard proVIdes valuable to any ler'vvhoto meet mandates retaIlers and can allow them topackaging options any

havedI rft.:rc:nl

2.3 Allocation

Accordmg to ISO 14040, allocatlon !s deflIled the lll-

put or flows of UI1l1 process to the underOuting the of LeA, allocation may be necessary when

all us-mg scorecards to packagedof A scorecard may

the strategIc targetsand any narrattve \Val-t'v1art's ~J{"_"\.{CI""'''

traduced in the US til 2006 as a measurement tool that [ov\'s suppliers to

evaluate themselves relatIve to other supplltTs, based on motnes. In the paekagmg scorecard system, the suppliers are to enter

informatIon regarding the of each product supplied to \Val­

Mart. Each product packagll1g IS then J In terms of ddYerent merncsof sLlstamability that Include GHG emissions produced per Ion ofagmg, size of packagIng, use of raw matenals, use of rene\vable energy,recycled content, transportation im pacts, innovauol1, etc [9 J.

SavvyPack® software allows users to create a snndar scorecardwhere the inbuilt matrices are populated durmg data' the L,elanalysis. The scorecard results for the eleven packaglllg systems stud­ied were created vlith the followlI1g rnatrices and the weighted averagefor each based closely to that utilized by Wal-Mart:

15% based all Purchased Material GHG

15% based all Sustainable Material

15% based on Package to Product Ratio

150/0 based on Cube Utilization

100/0 based on Transportation Distance

100/0 based on Recycled Content

100/0 based on Recovery

• 50/0 based 011 Reneviable

• 50/0 based on Energy Innovation

This scorecard proVIdes valuable to any ler'vvhoto meet mandates retaIlers and can allow them topackaging options any

havedI rft.:rc:nl

2.3 Allocation

Accordmg to ISO 14040, allocatlon !s deflIled the lll-

put or flows of UI1l1 process to the underOuting the of LeA, allocation may be necessary when

andand AA

/,PITt!/,PITt!

TT

[~":[~": ____~_~~_~ ~~ EnllJlslonsEnllJlslons _~~_02_~~_02--,-e)_*_S_oli_'d_\X_!,\S_(_e--,-e)_*_S_oli_'d_\X_!,\S_(_e __~~2~~~~~J:!S:Groonhou5e~~2~~~~~J:!S:Groonhou5e ____

FigureFigure 6.6. SystemSystem BoundarIesBoundarIes ofof EvaluatedEvaluated Systems.Systems.

aa processprocess yieldsyields moremore thanthan oneone productproduct i.e.i.e. aa multifunctionalmultifunctional processprocess [10].[10]. ThisThis studystudy focusedfocused primarilyprimarily onon thethe freshfresh strawberrystrawberry relatedrelated pack­pack­ageage manufactunng,manufactunng, productproduct fillmg,fillmg, unitizingunitizing andand distnbutiondistnbution compo­compo­ncntsncnts asas relatedrelated toto thethe sixsix primaryprimary containerscontainers (and(and pillowpillow wrapswraps wherewhere applicable)applicable) asas wellwell asas thethe distributiondistribution packagingpackaging involved.involved. StrawberryStrawberry production,production, harvestingharvesting andand packingpacking waswas excludedexcluded inin thisthis study.study. Alloca­Alloca­tiontion waswas notnot usedused inin thisthis studystudy sincesince therethere waswas nono moremore thanthan oneone inputinput oror outputoutput inin eacheach unitunit process.process.

2.42.4 SystemSystem BoundariesBoundaries

'rhe'rhe systemsystem boundariesboundaries areare illustratedillustrated inin FigureFigure 6.6. StrawberryStrawberry pro­pro­duction,duction, harvestingharvesting andand packingpacking werewere notnot includedincluded inin thisthis study.study. ItIt waswas assumedassumed thatthat anyany lossloss ofof productproduct waswas thethe samesame forfor allall eleveneleven packagingpackaging systemssystems studied.studied. GHGGHG inin COCO22 equivalentsequivalents andand energiesenergies werewere analyzedanalyzed basedbased onon materialsmaterials (used(used toto manufacturemanufacture thethe packagingpackaging components,components, packagingpackaging ofof thethe productproduct andand thethe secondarysecondary packaging),packaging), processesprocesses (pro­(pro­ductionduction fficilityfficility andand manufacturingmanufacturing processesprocesses forfor packagingpackaging compo­compo­nentsnents packagingpackaging ofof thethe product)product) andand transportationtransportation (raw(raw materials,materials, rawraw materialmaterial packaging,packaging, finishedfinished productproduct packagingpackaging fromfrom theirtheir pointpoint ofof

toto thethe productionproduction facilityfacility andand transportingtransporting thethe finishedfinished productproduct

~~""'''''i'',''Ui'',~~""'''''i'',''Ui'', fromfrom thethe productionproduction facilityfacility toto thethe customer).customer).

and A

/,PITt!

T

[~": __~_~ ~~2~~~~~J:!S:Groonhou5e ~ EnllJlslons _~~_02__--,-e)_*_S_oli_'d_\X_!,\S_(_e _

Figure 6. System BoundarIes of Evaluated Systems.

a process yields more than one product i.e. a multifunctional process[10]. This study focused primarily on the fresh strawberry related pack­age manufactunng, product fillmg, unitizing and distnbution compo­ncnts as related to the six primary containers (and pillow wraps whereapplicable) as well as the distribution packaging involved. Strawberryproduction, harvesting and packing was excluded in this study. Alloca­tion was not used in this study since there was no more than one inputor output in each unit process.

2.4 System Boundaries

'rhe system boundaries are illustrated in Figure 6. Strawberry pro­duction, harvesting and packing were not included in this study. It wasassumed that any loss of product was the same for all eleven packagingsystems studied. GHG in CO2 equivalents and energies were analyzedbased on materials (used to manufacture the packaging components,packaging of the product and the secondary packaging), processes (pro­duction fficility and manufacturing processes for packaging compo­nents packaging of the product) and transportation (raw materials,raw material packaging, finished product packaging from their point of

to the production facility and transporting the finished product

~~""'''''i'',''Ui'', from the production facility to the customer).

and A

/,PITt!

T

[~": __~_~ ~~2~~~~~J:!S:Groonhou5e ~ EnllJlslons _~~_02__--,-e)_*_S_oli_'d_\X_!,\S_(_e _

Figure 6. System BoundarIes of Evaluated Systems.

a process yields more than one product i.e. a multifunctional process[10]. This study focused primarily on the fresh strawberry related pack­age manufactunng, product fillmg, unitizing and distnbution compo­ncnts as related to the six primary containers (and pillow wraps whereapplicable) as well as the distribution packaging involved. Strawberryproduction, harvesting and packing was excluded in this study. Alloca­tion was not used in this study since there was no more than one inputor output in each unit process.

2.4 System Boundaries

'rhe system boundaries are illustrated in Figure 6. Strawberry pro­duction, harvesting and packing were not included in this study. It wasassumed that any loss of product was the same for all eleven packagingsystems studied. GHG in CO2 equivalents and energies were analyzedbased on materials (used to manufacture the packaging components,packaging of the product and the secondary packaging), processes (pro­duction fficility and manufacturing processes for packaging compo­nents packaging of the product) and transportation (raw materials,raw material packaging, finished product packaging from their point of

to the production facility and transporting the finished product

~~""'''''i'',''Ui'', from the production facility to the customer).

2.4.2.4. PackafYinPackafYin aa 1515 1515

TheThe primaryprimary designsdesigns studiedstudied areare shov;nshov;n mm JJ andand containcontain threethree paperpaper basedbased pulp,pulp, paperboardpaperboard andand cdcd fiberboard)fiberboard) andand threethree clamshellsclamshells oror punnetpunnet andand \Vhl\Vhl IeIe thethe threethree plastiCplastiC andand thethe moldedmolded areare presentlypresently usedused WidelyWidely InIn thethe US.,US., thethe paperboardpaperboard andand fiberboardfiberboard punnetspunnets arcarc notnot TheThe latterlatter formsforms ofof softsoft frUltfrUlt contall)CrScontall)CrS nrcnrc popularpopular InIn EuropeEurope andand InIn contrastcontrast toto thethe otherother containers,containers, provideprovide l:ll:l

largerlarger billboardbillboard forfor graphicsgraphics TheThe differentdifferent overalloverall ofof thethe prt­prt­marymary packagespackages areare providedprovided InIn TableTable I.I.

2.4.22.4.2 SecondarySecondary (Distribution)(Distribution) PackagingPackaging

AsAs shownshown inin thethe systemsystem boundaryboundary (Figure(Figure 5),5), thethe secondarysecondary ~JU,"d"a~­~JU,"d"a~­

mgmg usedused forfor th1sth1s studystudy waswas pnmanlypnmanly corrugatedcorrugated fiberboardfiberboard ORCs,ORCs, PETPET bandband strapsstraps andand reusablereusable woodenwooden pallets.pallets. TableTable II providesprovides detailsdetails ofof thethe palletlzmgpalletlzmg configuratIOnsconfiguratIOns forfor allall eleveneleven packagl11gpackagl11g systemssystems studied.studied. TheThe palletlzingpalletlzing configurat10nsconfigurat10ns werewere basedbased onon thethe eXlst1ngeXlst1ng oror recommendedrecommended methodologies.methodologies.

3.03.0 DATADATA ANDAND DATADATA QUALITYQUALITY REQUIREJ\1ENTSREQUIREJ\1ENTS

3.13.1 ProductionProduction ofof RawRaw MaterialsMaterials

TheThe LeILeI datadata forfor productionproduction ofof allall rawraw materialsmaterials namely,namely, PETPET andand rPETrPET (clamshells,(clamshells, punnet,punnet, pillowpillow wrapwrap andand bandband straps),straps), paperpaper basedbased substratessubstrates (molded(molded pulp,pulp, andand PLAPLA (pIllow(pIllow andand woodwood (pal(pal vvasvvas obtamedobtamed fromfrom thethe softwaresoftware DetaIlsDetaIls ofof thethe databasesdatabases sourcedsourced byby thiSthiS sofhvaresofhvare nrcnrc pruvldedpruvlded mm sectionsection 2.22.2 TheThe followmgfollowmg postpost consurnerconsurner contentcontent valuesvalues adoptedadopted forfor thethe rawraw lllaterJalslllaterJals LlsedLlsed mm allall >n~'."<.,,,,,>n~'."<.,,,,,

fiberboard,fiberboard, paperboardpaperboard andand fiberfiber (punnets(punnets andand PETPET (band(band stTaps}--27.2%,stTaps}--27.2%, PE'rPE'r (clamshells)----O%,(clamshells)----O%, punnetspunnets andand plliowplliow wraps)--SO%,wraps)--SO%, PLAPLA (pJllo\v(pJllo\v \\'raps\\'raps (pallets}--14.8%(pallets}--14.8% IIIIII JJ

3.23.2 ProductionProduction ofof

andand COCO 22 cqcq UU IV(j-TheThe cradcrad 115-115- to-gateto-gate energyenergy consumedconsumed oror credcred IV(j­

2.4. PackafYin a15 15

The primary designs studied are shov;n m Jand contain three paper based pulp, paperboard andcd fiberboard) and three clamshells or punnet and\Vhl Ie the three plastiC and the moldedare presently used Widely In the US., the paperboard andfiberboard punnets arc not The latter forms of soft frUlt contall)CrS nrcpopular In Europe and In contrast to the other containers, provide l:l

larger billboard for graphics The different overall of the prt­mary packages are provided In Table I.

2.4.2 Secondary (Distribution) Packaging

As shown in the system boundary (Figure 5), the secondary ~JU,"d"a~­

mg used for th1s study was pnmanly corrugated fiberboard ORCs, PETband straps and reusable wooden pallets. Table I provides details of thepalletlzmg configuratIOns for all eleven packagl11g systems studied. Thepalletlzing configurat10ns were based on the eXlst1ng or recommendedmethodologies.

3.0 DATA AND DATA QUALITY REQUIREJ\1ENTS

3.1 Production of Raw Materials

The LeI data for production of all raw materials namely, PET andrPET (clamshells, punnet, pillow wrap and band straps), paper basedsubstrates (molded pulp, and PLA(pIllow and wood (pal vvas obtamed from thesoftware DetaIls of the databases sourced by thiS sofhvare nrc pruvldedm section 2.2 The followmg post consurner content valuesadopted for the raw lllaterJals Llsed m all >n~'."<.,,,,,

fiberboard, paperboard and fiber (punnets andPET (band stTaps}--27.2%, PE'r (clamshells)----O%,punnets and plliow wraps)--SO%, PLA (pJllo\v \\'raps(pallets}--14.8% III J

3.2 Production of

The crad 115- to-gate energy consumed or cred and CO 2 cq U IV(j-

2.4. PackafYin a15 15

The primary designs studied are shov;n m Jand contain three paper based pulp, paperboard andcd fiberboard) and three clamshells or punnet and\Vhl Ie the three plastiC and the moldedare presently used Widely In the US., the paperboard andfiberboard punnets arc not The latter forms of soft frUlt contall)CrS nrcpopular In Europe and In contrast to the other containers, provide l:l

larger billboard for graphics The different overall of the prt­mary packages are provided In Table I.

2.4.2 Secondary (Distribution) Packaging

As shown in the system boundary (Figure 5), the secondary ~JU,"d"a~­

mg used for th1s study was pnmanly corrugated fiberboard ORCs, PETband straps and reusable wooden pallets. Table I provides details of thepalletlzmg configuratIOns for all eleven packagl11g systems studied. Thepalletlzing configurat10ns were based on the eXlst1ng or recommendedmethodologies.

3.0 DATA AND DATA QUALITY REQUIREJ\1ENTS

3.1 Production of Raw Materials

The LeI data for production of all raw materials namely, PET andrPET (clamshells, punnet, pillow wrap and band straps), paper basedsubstrates (molded pulp, and PLA(pIllow and wood (pal vvas obtamed from thesoftware DetaIls of the databases sourced by thiS sofhvare nrc pruvldedm section 2.2 The followmg post consurner content valuesadopted for the raw lllaterJals Llsed m all >n~'."<.,,,,,

fiberboard, paperboard and fiber (punnets andPET (band stTaps}--27.2%, PE'r (clamshells)----O%,punnets and plliow wraps)--SO%, PLA (pJllo\v \\'raps(pallets}--14.8% III J

3.2 Production of

The crad 115- to-gate energy consumed or cred and CO 2 cq U IV(j-

TableTable 1.1. PackagingPackaging DifferencesDifferences forfor thethe 0.450.45

rPETrPET rPETrPET PETPET rflETrPET PunnetJPunnetJ PunnetJPunnetJ PunnetJ Punnetf Pulp PulpPulp PunnetfPunniltJ PUnnfit!PtHHH~tJ

ClamshellClamshell ClamshellClarnshell RPETRPET PLAPLA rPET PLA Tray/rPET TraylPLATray IPLA (-PET PLA

WeightWeight ofof PETPET (kg)(kg) 0.0270.027 "IJA"'JA NJANJA NJANJA NJANJA NJANJA NJANJA NIAN/A NiA N/AN/A WeightWeigh1 ofof rPETrPET (kg)(kg) NJANJA 0.0270027 00250.025 0.0250.025 NJANJA NJANJA NJAN/A N/AN/A NJANJA N/ANIA

WeightWeight ofof paperpaper basedbased materialmaterial (kg)(kg) NJANJA "I/A"'fA N/ANJA N/AN/A 0.0400.040 0.0400.040 0.0400.040 00400040 0.032 0 032 WeightWeight ofof wrapperwrapper (kg)(kg) N/ANfA N/A"'fA 0.0030.003 0.0030.003 0.0030.003 0.0030.003 00030003 00030003 0.0030003 0000:'1 SecondarySecondary packagingpackaging ORCORC ORCORC ORCORC ORCORC ORCORC ORCORC ORCORC ORCORC ORCORC Df~COf~C

ContainersContainers perper palletpallet 840840 840840 840840 840840 840840 840840 840840 840840 840840 840840

weightTotalTotal weigh! ofof palletizedpalletized loadload (kg)(kg) 574574 574574 675675 675675 762762 762762 804804 804804 776 776

ProductProduct weightweight perper palletpallet (kg)(kg) 381381 381381 381381 381381 381381 381381 38'\381 381381 381381 :)81381

PackagingPackaging weightweight perper palletpallet (kg)(kg) 193193 193193 294294 294294 381381 381381 423423 423423 395395 NumberNumber ofof palletspallets perper trucktruck (kg)(kg) 2222 ~2~2 2222 2222 2222 2222 2222 2222 2222 ProductProduct weightweight perper trucktruck (kg)(kg) 83828382 8~828~82 83828382 83828382 83828382 83828382 83828382 83828382 83828382 83828382 PackagingPackaging weightweight perper trucktruck (kg)(kg) 42464246 42464~46 64686468 64686468 83828382 83828382 93069306 93069306

--~"~------~_.""-"'",",'''''''''

86908690 86908690,-_._._------_•.."..~........ ~..." ....,.",._-,­

TotalTotal weightweight perper trucktruck (kg)(kg) 1262812628 1262812628 1485014850 1485014850 1676416764 1676416764 1768817688 1768817688 1707217072 1707217072

Table 1. Packaging Differences for the 0.45

rPET rPETPET rPET PunnetJ PunnetJ Pulp PunniltJ PtHHH~tJ

Clamshell Clarnshell RPET PLA Tray IPLA PLA

Weight of PET (kg) 0.027 "'JA NJA NJA NJA NJA NJA N/A N/AWeigh1 of rPET (kg) NJA 0027 0.025 0.025 NJA NJA N/A N/A NJA NIA

Weight of paper based material (kg) NJA "'fA NJA N/A 0.040 0.040 0.040 0040 0.032 032Weight of wrapper (kg) NfA "'fA 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0003 0003 0003 000:'1Secondary packaging ORC ORC ORC ORC ORC ORC ORC ORC ORC Of~C

Containers per pallet 840 840 840 840 840 840 840 840 840 840

Total weigh! of palletized load (kg) 574 574 675 675 762 762 804 804 776Product weight per pallet (kg) 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381

Packaging weight per pallet (kg) 193 193 294 294 381 381 423 423 395Number of pallets per truck (kg) 22 ~2 22 22 22 22 22 22 22Product weight per truck (kg) 8382 8~82 8382 8382 8382 8382 8382 8382 8382 8382Packaging weight per truck (kg) 4246 4~46 6468 6468 8382 8382 9306 9306 8690 8690,-_._._------_•.."..~........~..." ....,.",._-,-

Total weight per truck (kg) 12628 12628 14850 14850 16764 16764 17688 17688 17072 17072

Table 1. Packaging Differences for the 0.45

rPET rPETPET rPET PunnetJ PunnetJ Pulp PunniltJ PtHHH~tJ

Clamshell Clarnshell RPET PLA Tray IPLA PLA

Weight of PET (kg) 0.027 "'JA NJA NJA NJA NJA NJA N/A N/AWeigh1 of rPET (kg) NJA 0027 0.025 0.025 NJA NJA N/A N/A NJA NIA

Weight of paper based material (kg) NJA "'fA NJA N/A 0.040 0.040 0.040 0040 0.032 032Weight of wrapper (kg) NfA "'fA 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0003 0003 0003 000:'1Secondary packaging ORC ORC ORC ORC ORC ORC ORC ORC ORC Of~C

Containers per pallet 840 840 840 840 840 840 840 840 840 840

Total weigh! of palletized load (kg) 574 574 675 675 762 762 804 804 776Product weight per pallet (kg) 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381

Packaging weight per pallet (kg) 193 193 294 294 381 381 423 423 395Number of pallets per truck (kg) 22 ~2 22 22 22 22 22 22 22Product weight per truck (kg) 8382 8~82 8382 8382 8382 8382 8382 8382 8382 8382Packaging weight per truck (kg) 4246 4~46 6468 6468 8382 8382 9306 9306 8690 8690,-_._._------_•.."..~........~..." ....,.",._-,-

Total weight per truck (kg) 12628 12628 14850 14850 16764 16764 17688 17688 17072 17072

lemslems toto produceproduce allall asas assocassoc a\"3thethe dd IsposaIsposa II v','erev','ere a\"a IlaIlabbIeIe databasedatabase ICIC sheets/filmssheets/films \\'(~IT\\'(~IT

thethe extrusIOnextrusIOn processprocess andand thethe clamshellsclamshells fOrIT!edfOrIT!ed

3.33.3 ConsumptionConsumption

TheThe flllll1gflllll1g ofof pnmarypnmary contamerscontamers withwith harvestedharvested strH\vbcr~strH\vbcr~

nesnes waswas assumedassumed IdenticalIdentical forfor alal eleveneleven packagingpackaging systemssystems andand waswas excludedexcluded fromfrom thiSthiS UnitizatIOnUnitizatIOn andand storagestorage pnorpnor 1010 andand duringduring

(on-SHedlstnbutlondlstnbutlon ofof fliledfliled containerscontainers toto msututlonalmsututlonal customerscustomers (on-sHe users)users) andand retatlersretatlers wlthlllwlthlll 402402 ktlOlTletersktlOlTleters fromfrom thethe processingprocessing andand plantplant werewere assumedassumed toto resultresult 1Il1Il similarsimilar impactsimpacts AutomatedAutomated cartoners,cartoners,

pUl1nels let~let~casecase packers,packers, plliowplliow form-fill-sealform-fill-seal packerspackers forfor allall punncls andand izersizers werewere includedincluded 111111 thisthis studystudy TheThe detailsdetails ofof thethe IJ«\,,]\,";:;:'1IJ«\,,]\,";:;:'1

prOVIdedratIonsratIons forfor allall packagingpackaging systemssystems areare provIded inin TableTable dImenSIonsdImenSIOns werewere assumedassumed toto bebe 110202 cmcm xx 122122 cmcm xx 1515 emem andand thethe

dImensions 16.216.2 mm xx 2.82.8 IIIIII \vlth\vlth aa \Nelght\Nelght capacitycapacitytrucktruck dllllensions werewere 2.42.4 mm xx

ofof 1980019800 kg.kg. WoodenWooden palletspallets \vere\vere assumedassumed toto havehave aa llsefulllseful lifelife ofof 3030 tripstrips

3.43.4 DistancesDistances andand TransportationTransportation

DistanceDistance fromfrom allall resinresin (PET,(PET, rPETrPET andand PLA)PLA) supplierssuppliers toto thethe manu­manu­facturingfacturing centerscenters averagedaveraged atat 48284828 kmkm andand includedincluded trucktruck andand traintrain asas thethe modesmodes ofof transport.transport. TheThe labelslabels werewere assumedassumed 1010 bebe shippedshipped fromfrom 520520 kmkm toto thethe pnmarypnmary AA finIshedfinIshed lnglng comcom ponenponen tsts IIncnc IIudmgudmg basedbased \voockn\voockn papa IIletslets alldalld PE'TPE'T bandband strapsstraps werewere assurnedassurned toto bebe shsh faTITlsfaTITls fromfrom allall aver"aver"

ageage ofof 402402 km.km. TheThe overalloverall cradcrad andand CjllCJCjllCJ rallosrallos thatthat convertedconverted energyenergy useuse andand GG l-~Gl-~G enllSSlonsenllSSlons toto cracHecracHe equequ forfor thethe trucktruck andand rallcarnulcar werewere availableavailable thth thethe LeiLei soft-ware.soft-ware.

3.53.5 End-of-LifeEnd-of-Life

1'01 end-of-lIfeend-of-lIfe scenariOSscenariOS inin termsterms ofof H1ClI1eraLIOnTheThe foJ II ,, H1ClI1eratlon andand IngIng forfor allall ngng COITlponerllsCOITlponerlls usedused IIIIII thethe studIedstudIed \vere\vere conSidered.conSidered. BothBoth scenanosscenanos lha!assumedassumed lhat nono

the extrusIOn process and the clamshellsfOrIT!ed

lemsas assocdatabase

to produce allthe d Isposa I v','ere a\"a IlabIeIC sheets/films \\'(~IT

3.3 Consumption

The flllll1g of pnmary contamers with harvested strH\vbcr~

nes was assumed Identical for al eleven packaging systems and wasexcluded from thiS UnitizatIOn and storage pnor 10 and duringdlstnbutlon of fliled containers to msututlonal customers (on-sHe users)and retatlers wlthlll 402 ktlOlTleters from the processing andplant were assumed to result 1Il similar impacts Automated cartoners,case packers, plliow form-fill-seal packers for all punncls and let~

izers were included 111 this study The details of the IJ«\,,]\,";:;:'1

ratIons for all packaging systems are provIded in TabledImenSIOns were assumed to be 102 cm x 122 cm x 15 em and thetruck dllllensions were 2.4 m x 16.2 m x 2.8 III \vlth a \Nelght capacityof 19800 kg. Wooden pallets \vere assumed to have a llseful life of 30trips

3.4 Distances and Transportation

Distance from all resin (PET, rPET and PLA) suppliers to the manu­facturing centers averaged at 4828 km and included truck and train asthe modes of transport. The labels were assumed 10 be shipped from 520km to the pnmary A finIshedlng com ponen ts Inc Iudmg based \voockn pa Ilets alldPE'T band straps were assurned to be sh faTITls from all aver"

age of 402 km. The overall crad and CjllCJ rallos thatconverted energy use and G l-~G enllSSlons to cracHe equ for thetruck and rallcar were available th theLei soft-ware.

3.5 End-of-Life

The foJ end-of-lIfe scenariOS in terms of I , H1ClI1eratlonand Ing for all ng COITlponerlls used III thestudIed \vere conSidered. Both scenanos assumed lhat no

the extrusIOn process and the clamshellsfOrIT!ed

lemsas assocdatabase

to produce allthe d Isposa I v','ere a\"a IlabIeIC sheets/films \\'(~IT

3.3 Consumption

The flllll1g of pnmary contamers with harvested strH\vbcr~

nes was assumed Identical for al eleven packaging systems and wasexcluded from thiS UnitizatIOn and storage pnor 10 and duringdlstnbutlon of fliled containers to msututlonal customers (on-sHe users)and retatlers wlthlll 402 ktlOlTleters from the processing andplant were assumed to result 1Il similar impacts Automated cartoners,case packers, plliow form-fill-seal packers for all punncls and let~

izers were included 111 this study The details of the IJ«\,,]\,";:;:'1

ratIons for all packaging systems are provIded in TabledImenSIOns were assumed to be 102 cm x 122 cm x 15 em and thetruck dllllensions were 2.4 m x 16.2 m x 2.8 III \vlth a \Nelght capacityof 19800 kg. Wooden pallets \vere assumed to have a llseful life of 30trips

3.4 Distances and Transportation

Distance from all resin (PET, rPET and PLA) suppliers to the manu­facturing centers averaged at 4828 km and included truck and train asthe modes of transport. The labels were assumed 10 be shipped from 520km to the pnmary A finIshedlng com ponen ts Inc Iudmg based \voockn pa Ilets alldPE'T band straps were assurned to be sh faTITls from all aver"

age of 402 km. The overall crad and CjllCJ rallos thatconverted energy use and G l-~G enllSSlons to cracHe equ for thetruck and rallcar were available th theLei soft-ware.

3.5 End-of-Life

The foJ end-of-lIfe scenariOS in terms of I , H1ClI1eratlonand Ing for all ng COITlponerlls used III thestudIed \vere conSidered. Both scenanos assumed lhat no

214214 AA

andand retailretail customerscustomers andand thatthat treatmenttreatment process.process.

IIncmeration13ncmeration13 00/000/0

incmeratJOnJ50%incmeratJOnJ50% landfilllandfill

solsol idid wastewaste treatmenttreatment ratesrates ininh,Qp,nJI-'(lh,Qp,nJI-'(l acrossacross II materialsmaterials llsedllsed inin thethe eleveneleven sys­sys­

.rn"-l/'F",n.rn"-l/'F",n climate,climate, energyenergy andand environmentalenvironmental con­con­

U''-''''-'j,,-'VWjU''-''''-'j,,-'VWj developmentsdevelopments andand regulatoryregulatory changeschanges aa renewedrenewed interestinterest inin MSWMSW asas anan energyenergy sourcesource withwith thethe

toto provideprovide renewablerenewable energyenergy whilewhile reducingreducing GI-IGGI-IG emissionsemissions forfor spacespace [12J[12J MSW-to-energyMSW-to-energy technologiestechnologies beingbeing

includeinclude landfilllandfill gasgas capturecapture (biogas(biogas mademade ofof approxi­approxi­50~)50~) COCO22 andand 505000/0/0 methane)methane) [13J,[13J, combustioncombustion (burning(burning wastewaste

atat approximatelyapproximately 980°C)980°C) 14J,14J, pyrolysispyrolysis (MSW(MSW heatedheated inin absenceabsence ofof oxygenoxygen atat approxlmatelyapproxlmately 290-700°C)290-700°C) [1[1 5J,5J, gasIficationgasIfication (MSW(MSW heatedheated withwith smalsmal JJ amountamount ofof oxygenoxygen atat 390-1390-1 650°C)650°C) [16J[16J andand plasmaplasma arcarc gas­gas­

(superheated(superheated plasmaplasma technologytechnology usedused toto gasifygasify MSWMSW atat ap­ap­5540°C)5540°C) [17].[17]. LandfillLandfill gasgas capturecapture hashas achlevedachleved thethe widestwidest

U'-""'-'I,)'UA'j,-,,-,U'-""'-'I,)'UA'j,-,,-, arnongstarnongst thesethese technologiestechnologies withwith bio-energybio-energy programsprograms inin atat 485485 lislis inin U.S.U.S. IIIIII DecemberDecember 20082008 [18].[18]. combus­WasteWaste combus­

tiontion hashas notnot growngrown inin acceptanceacceptance sincesince 19961996 andand presentlypresently therethere areare 8888 waste-to-energywaste-to-energy plantsplants inin operationoperation IIIIII 2525 statesstates [19].[19]. GasificationGasification andand plasmaplasma arcarc technologiestechnologies areare stisti IIII facingfacing challengeschallenges towardstowards commercialcommercial

,:,rUU1,:,rUU1 lJ'lJ' 1.-11.-1 ::fv'::fv' CV1r::f1CV1r::f1u{nu{n 11 ii116'116' Ll11...--Ll11...-- 11iin.;1n.;1 'CaSl'CaSl iJiJ1616'' 11ii n:ptn.71.'n:ptn.71.' 0101 f'1f'1 l:ruull:ruul fillfill d1d1 ruru 11 IiIIiI~~ lil~lil~

orationoration technologies,technologies, ScenarioScenario II II waswas usedused inin thisthis study.study.

4.04.0 RESULTSRESULTS

TheThe mainmain purposepurpose ofof thisthis studystudy waswas toto provideprovide aa relativelyrelatively simplesimple methodologymethodology toto serveserve asas aa decisiondecision makingmaking tooltool whenwhen moremore thanthan oneone packagingpackaging solutionsolution couldcould bebe availableavailable toto aa user.user. ForFor thisthis reason,reason, wewe pro­pro­videvide environmentalenvironmental emissionsemissions ofof thethe packagingpackaging systemssystems studiedstudied (LCI)(LCI) andand notnot thethe burdensburdens (LCA).(LCA). AA fullfull LCALCA needsneeds toto bebe undertakenundertaken toto un­un­derstandderstand thethe impactsimpacts ofof thethe environmentalenvironmental burdens.burdens. AlsoAlso duedue toto recentrecent 11landates11landates fromfrom retailersretailers thatthat useuse scorecardsscorecards toto judgejudge packagedpackaged productsproducts inin termsterms ofof didi metricsmetrics ofof sust2inability,sust2inability, thisthis studystudy incorporatedincorporated itit asas aa techniquetechnique comparingcomparing thethe eleveneleven packagingpackaging systemssystems studied.studied.

214 A

and retail customers and thattreatment process.

Incmeration13 00/0

incmeratJOnJ50% landfill

sol id waste treatment rates inh,Qp,nJI-'(l across I materials llsed in the eleven sys­

.rn"-l/'F",n climate, energy and environmental con­

U''-''''-'j,,-'VWj developments and regulatory changesa renewed interest in MSW as an energy source with the

to provide renewable energy while reducing GI-IG emissionsfor space [12J MSW-to-energy technologies being

include landfill gas capture (biogas made of approxi­50~) CO2 and 500/0 methane) [13J, combustion (burning waste

at approximately 980°C) 14J, pyrolysis (MSW heated in absence ofoxygen at approxlmately 290-700°C) [1 5J, gasIfication (MSW heatedwith smal J amount of oxygen at 390-1 650°C) [16J and plasma arc gas­

(superheated plasma technology used to gasify MSW at ap­5540°C) [17]. Landfill gas capture has achleved the widest

U'-""'-'I,)'UA'j,-,,-, arnongst these technologies with bio-energy programs inat 485 lis in U.S. III December 2008 [18]. Waste combus-

tion has not grown in acceptance since 1996 and presently there are 88waste-to-energy plants in operation III 25 states [19]. Gasification andplasma arc technologies are sti II facing challenges towards commercial

,:,rUU1 lJ' 1.-1 ::fv' CV1r::f1u{n 1 i116' Ll11...-- 1in.;1 'CaSl iJ16' 1i n:ptn.71.' 01 f'1 l:ruul fill d1 ru 1 IiI~ lil~

oration technologies, Scenario I I was used in this study.

4.0 RESULTS

The main purpose of this study was to provide a relatively simplemethodology to serve as a decision making tool when more than onepackaging solution could be available to a user. For this reason, we pro­vide environmental emissions of the packaging systems studied (LCI)and not the burdens (LCA). A full LCA needs to be undertaken to un­derstand the impacts of the environmental burdens. Also due to recent11landates from retailers that use scorecards to judge packaged productsin terms of di metrics of sust2inability, this study incorporatedit as a technique comparing the eleven packaging systems studied.

214 A

and retail customers and thattreatment process.

Incmeration13 00/0

incmeratJOnJ50% landfill

sol id waste treatment rates inh,Qp,nJI-'(l across I materials llsed in the eleven sys­

.rn"-l/'F",n climate, energy and environmental con­

U''-''''-'j,,-'VWj developments and regulatory changesa renewed interest in MSW as an energy source with the

to provide renewable energy while reducing GI-IG emissionsfor space [12J MSW-to-energy technologies being

include landfill gas capture (biogas made of approxi­50~) CO2 and 500/0 methane) [13J, combustion (burning waste

at approximately 980°C) 14J, pyrolysis (MSW heated in absence ofoxygen at approxlmately 290-700°C) [1 5J, gasIfication (MSW heatedwith smal J amount of oxygen at 390-1 650°C) [16J and plasma arc gas­

(superheated plasma technology used to gasify MSW at ap­5540°C) [17]. Landfill gas capture has achleved the widest

U'-""'-'I,)'UA'j,-,,-, arnongst these technologies with bio-energy programs inat 485 lis in U.S. III December 2008 [18]. Waste combus-

tion has not grown in acceptance since 1996 and presently there are 88waste-to-energy plants in operation III 25 states [19]. Gasification andplasma arc technologies are sti II facing challenges towards commercial

,:,rUU1 lJ' 1.-1 ::fv' CV1r::f1u{n 1 i116' Ll11...-- 1in.;1 'CaSl iJ16' 1i n:ptn.71.' 01 f'1 l:ruul fill d1 ru 1 IiI~ lil~

oration technologies, Scenario I I was used in this study.

4.0 RESULTS

The main purpose of this study was to provide a relatively simplemethodology to serve as a decision making tool when more than onepackaging solution could be available to a user. For this reason, we pro­vide environmental emissions of the packaging systems studied (LCI)and not the burdens (LCA). A full LCA needs to be undertaken to un­derstand the impacts of the environmental burdens. Also due to recent11landates from retailers that use scorecards to judge packaged productsin terms of di metrics of sust2inability, this study incorporatedit as a technique comparing the eleven packaging systems studied.

TableTable 2.2. GreenhouseGreenhouse GasesGases andand

EnergyEnergy (MJIFU)(MJIFU)

ContalnerfWrapperContalnerfWrapper 40Rl301130L40Rl301130L SO!}SOLSO!}SOL 40Rf301130L40Rf301130L SOl/SOLSal/SOL

PETPET Clamshell/(NJA)Clamshell/(NJA) 1027710277 96.6296.62 695695 RPETRPET C!amshellJ(N/A)C!amshellJ(N/A) 99.0999.09 9191 77 6.356.35 6.906.90 RPETRPET PunnetiRPETPunnetiRPET 91.0691.06 84.9984.99 5.865.86 RPETRPET PunnetfPLAPunnetfPLA 89.9989.99 83.9283.92 5.845.84 PaperboardPaperboard PunnetfPunnetf RPETRPET 98.6698.66 97459745 5.925.92 6.016.01 PaperboardPaperboard PunPunnetnet II PLAPLA 99.0499.04 97839783 66 11 MoldedMolded PaperPaper Tray/RPETTray/RPET 97799779 96.5896.58 44 1818 4.274.27 MoldedMolded PaperPaper Tray/PLATray/PLA 96.7196.71 95.5195.51 44 1616 4.254.25 CorrugatedCorrugated PunnetiRPETPunnetiRPET 99.7699.76 98.5598.55 6.196.19 6.276.27

PunnetiPLAPunnetlPLA 99.0499.04 97839783 614614 6.226.22

4.14.1 DiscussionDiscussion

BasedBased onon thethe datadata collected,collected, GHGGHG outputoutput (kg(kg COCO22 andand energyenergy LIse/credituse/credit (MJ)(MJ) perper functIonalfunctIonal UIlIt,UIlIt, andand thethe scorecardscorecard resultsresults fromfrom thotho analySISanalySIS werewere tabulatedtabulated TableTable 22 andand FiguresFigures 66 andand 77 sho\"/sho\"/ thethe GG I-IGI-IG outputoutput andand energyenergy usesuses forfor thethe twotwo end-of-Iend-of-I ifeife scenariosscenarios consideredconsidered TableTable 33 sho\vssho\vs thethe resuresu ItsIts inin aa scorecardscorecard format.format.

4.1.14.1.1 EnergyEnergy UsageUsage ResultsResults

TheThe energyenergy use/credituse/credit waswas studiedstudied forfor thethe eleveneleven 0.450.45 kgkg stnnv­stnnv­berryberry packagingpackaging systems.systems. FigureFigure 77 showsshows thethe percentagepercentage differencedifference 111111

2%2% +--------------------~-""-+--------------------~-""- ....~.-.~.-.

~~ -2%-2% iPiP cc ww .~.~

(l)(l)

~~!:'!:' ~~oo VV QlQl $$ ~~ -10'%-10'%

~~Q..Q.. 12%12%

oo -14%+-'-- ­-14%+-'--­ oo

FigureFigure 77 PercentagePercentage DifferenceDifference inin EnergyEnergy UsageUsage ComparedCompared 1010 PFTPFT ClamslwflClamslwfl

Table 2. Greenhouse Gases and

Energy (MJIFU)

ContalnerfWrapper 40Rl301130L SO!}SOL 40Rf301130L Sal/SOL

PET Clamshell/(NJA)RPET C!amshellJ(N/A)RPET PunnetiRPETRPET PunnetfPLAPaperboard Punnetf RPETPaperboard Punnet I PLAMolded Paper Tray/RPETMolded Paper Tray/PLACorrugated PunnetiRPET

PunnetlPLA

1027799.0991.0689.9998.6699.04977996.7199.7699.04

96.6291 784.9983.929745978396.5895.5198.559783

6956.355.865.845.926 14 184 166.19614

6.90

6.01

4.274.256.276.22

4.1 Discussion

Based on the data collected, GHG output (kg CO2 and energyuse/credit (MJ) per functIonal UIlIt, and the scorecard results from thoanalySIS were tabulated Table 2 and Figures 6 and 7 sho\"/ the G I-IGoutput and energy uses for the two end-of-I ife scenarios consideredTable 3 sho\vs the resu Its in a scorecard format.

4.1.1 Energy Usage Results

The energy use/credit was studied for the eleven 0.45 kg stnnv­berry packaging systems. Figure 7 shows the percentage difference 111

oo

2%+--------------------~-""- ..~.-.

~ -2%iPcw.~

(l)

~!:'~oVQl$~ -10'%

~Q.. 12%

-14%+-'---

Figure 7 Percentage Difference in Energy Usage Compared 10 PFT Clamslwfl

Table 2. Greenhouse Gases and

Energy (MJIFU)

ContalnerfWrapper 40Rl301130L SO!}SOL 40Rf301130L Sal/SOL

PET Clamshell/(NJA)RPET C!amshellJ(N/A)RPET PunnetiRPETRPET PunnetfPLAPaperboard Punnetf RPETPaperboard Punnet I PLAMolded Paper Tray/RPETMolded Paper Tray/PLACorrugated PunnetiRPET

PunnetlPLA

1027799.0991.0689.9998.6699.04977996.7199.7699.04

96.6291 784.9983.929745978396.5895.5198.559783

6956.355.865.845.926 14 184 166.19614

6.90

6.01

4.274.256.276.22

4.1 Discussion

Based on the data collected, GHG output (kg CO2 and energyuse/credit (MJ) per functIonal UIlIt, and the scorecard results from thoanalySIS were tabulated Table 2 and Figures 6 and 7 sho\"/ the G I-IGoutput and energy uses for the two end-of-I ife scenarios consideredTable 3 sho\vs the resu Its in a scorecard format.

4.1.1 Energy Usage Results

The energy use/credit was studied for the eleven 0.45 kg stnnv­berry packaging systems. Figure 7 shows the percentage difference 111

oo

2%+--------------------~-""- ..~.-.

~ -2%iPcw.~

(l)

~!:'~oVQl$~ -10'%

~Q.. 12%

-14%+-'---

Figure 7 Percentage Difference in Energy Usage Compared 10 PFT Clamslwfl

tv .~

TableTable 3.3. PackagingPackaging ScorecardScorecard Results.Results.

rPETrPET rPETrPET PaperboardPaperboard PaperboardPaperboard MoldedMolded MoldedMolded ComlgatedComlgateo Gom.lgntudCorrugattl'o MaxMax PETPET rPETrPET PunnetJPunnetJ PunnetJPunnetJ PunnetJPunnetl PunnetJPunnetl PulpPulp PulpPulp PunnQtl PunlHHI

CriterionCriterion ScoreScore ClamshellClamshell ClamshellClamshell rPETrPET PLAPLA rPETrPET PLAPLA Tray/rPETTray/rPET TroyfPLATray/PLA rPETrPET PLAPLA

Ratio

PurchasedPurchased MaterialMaterial GHGGHG

SustainableSustainable MaterialMaterial

TransportationTransportation DistanceDistance

PackagePackage toto ProductProduct R.atio

1515

1515

1010

1515

10.3610.36

6.616.61

439439

6.056.05

10.8510.85

6.616.61

4.394.39

6.056.05

12.3812.38

13.6213.62

9.089.08

12.8012.80

12.3812.38

13.6213.62

9.089.08

12.8012.80

14.3314.33

12.1112.11

10.0010.00

12.8012.80

1211

14.3314.33

12 11

10.0010.00

12.8012.80

1,0.00

1'2.80

14.3314.33

12.1112.11

liO.OO

12.80

14.3314.33

10001000

12.8012.80

10851085

661661

4 39

6.056.05

10.85

4.39

6.616.61

60506050 :A

OJ ;;:l (),

» A

~~Recycled

CubeCube UtilizationUtilization

R.ecycled ContentContent

RecoveryRecovery

RenewableRenewable EnergyEnergy

1515

1010

1010

55

622

7.507.50

77 1010

6.22

2.502.50

7.507.50

6.456.45

6.556.55

2.502.50

1000

7.507.50

10.00

7.987.98

2.502.50

7.50750

10.0010.00

797797

2.502.50

7.507.50

908908

848848

2.502.50

7.507.50

9.039.03

846846

2.502.50

750750

9.039.03

848848

2.502.50 2.50

7.507.50

9.039.03

846846

250

655

7.507.50

645645 (355

2.502.50

6

7.507.50

(345

653653

SOSO (I)

(j)(j) 00<'I"'"<:<: en 2S2S

EnergyEnergy InnovationInnovation 55 2.502.50 2.502.50 2.502.50 2.502.50 2.502.50 2.502.50 2.502.50 2.502.50 2.502.50 250250

TotalTotal 100100 53.2353.23 53.4053.40 78.3678.36 78.3578.35 79.2579.25 79.2379.23 79.2579.25 79.2379.23 53,3953,39 53.3753.37

tv.~

Table 3. Packaging Scorecard Results.

rPET rPET Paperboard Paperboard Molded Molded Comlgateo Corrugattl'oMax PET rPET PunnetJ PunnetJ Punnetl Punnetl Pulp Pulp PunlHHI

Criterion Score Clamshell Clamshell rPET PLA rPET PLA Tray/rPET Tray/PLA rPET PLA

Purchased Material GHG 15 10.36 10.85 12.38 12.38 14.33 14.33 14.33 14.33 1085OJ;;:l

Sustainable Material 15 6.61 6.61 13.62 13.62 12.11 12 11 12.11 661 6.61(),

»Transportation Distance 10 439 4.39 9.08 9.08 10.00 10.00 liO.OO 1000 4 39

Package to Product R.atio 15 6.05 6.05 12.80 12.80 12.80 12.80 12.80 12.80 6.05 6050A

~Cube Utilization 15 7.50 7.50 7.50 750 7.50 7.50 750 7.50 7.50 7.50(j)

R.ecycled Content 10 7 10 6.45 10.00 10.00 908 9.03 9.03 9.03 645 (345 0Recovery 10 6.22 6.55 7.98 797 848 846 848 846 (355 653

<'I"'"<:Renewable Energy 5 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 250 2.50 SO en

2SEnergy Innovation 5 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 250

Total 100 53.23 53.40 78.36 78.35 79.25 79.23 79.25 79.23 53,39 53.37

tv.~

Table 3. Packaging Scorecard Results.

rPET rPET Paperboard Paperboard Molded Molded Comlgateo Corrugattl'oMax PET rPET PunnetJ PunnetJ Punnetl Punnetl Pulp Pulp PunlHHI

Criterion Score Clamshell Clamshell rPET PLA rPET PLA Tray/rPET Tray/PLA rPET PLA

Purchased Material GHG 15 10.36 10.85 12.38 12.38 14.33 14.33 14.33 14.33 1085OJ;;:l

Sustainable Material 15 6.61 6.61 13.62 13.62 12.11 12 11 12.11 661 6.61(),

»Transportation Distance 10 439 4.39 9.08 9.08 10.00 10.00 liO.OO 1000 4 39

Package to Product R.atio 15 6.05 6.05 12.80 12.80 12.80 12.80 12.80 12.80 6.05 6050A

~Cube Utilization 15 7.50 7.50 7.50 750 7.50 7.50 750 7.50 7.50 7.50(j)

R.ecycled Content 10 7 10 6.45 10.00 10.00 908 9.03 9.03 9.03 645 (345 0Recovery 10 6.22 6.55 7.98 797 848 846 848 846 (355 653

<'I"'"<:Renewable Energy 5 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 250 2.50 SO en

2SEnergy Innovation 5 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 250

Total 100 53.23 53.40 78.36 78.35 79.25 79.23 79.25 79.23 53,39 53.37

tematetemate lJe"_I"-u:;;;::,lJe"_I"-u:;;;::,

RPETRPET oror lowestlowest energyenergy approxapprox 14%14% J'YOJ'YO IyIy 1ll1ll

comparisoncomparison toto over­PETPET clamshells.clamshells. TheThe paperpaper basedbased alternativesalternatives over­aa 1111 hadhad aa decreaseddecreased energyenergy usageusage InIn thethe rangerange ofof 3-~6%)3-~6%)

compansoncompanson ScenanoScenano JJ reflectsreflects anan approxImateapproxImate otot thethe municimunici solidsolid wastewaste treatmenttreatment ratesrates inin thethe U.SU.S 18.118.1 InIn SccnanoSccnano 11 ,, thethe RPRP ETET punnetspunnets nn PLAPLA oror rPrP ETET plipli 11()\VS()\VS sho\vedsho\ved Ihl~Ihl~

lo\,vestlo\,vest energyenergy useuse \vith\vith 140/0140/0 andand 13%,13%, IyIy 1ll1ll

comparisoncomparison toto thethe PETPET clamshells.clamshells. AllAll paperpaper basedbased alternatIvesalternatIves werewere approximatelyapproximately atat par.par.

4.1.24.1.2 CreenhouseCreenhouse CasCas (COle)(COle) ResultsResults

FigureFigure 88 showsshows thethe percentagepercentage ddiffererlceiffererlce 111111 GG HHGG emem ississ IonsIons (COle)(COle) forfor allall systenlssystenls studiedstudied inin comparisoncomparison toto thethe PETPET clamshellsclamshells 1111 waswas observedobserved thatthat allall alternatealternate systemssystems contrIbutedcontrIbuted SIgnificantlySIgnificantly lowerlower GHGGHG emem ississ ionsions forfor bothboth end-of-end-of- lifelife scenariosscenarios whenwhen comcom paredpared toto thethe tradtrad 1­1­

tionaltional PETPET clamshells.clamshells. ForFor ScenanoScenano I,I, whilewhile thethe rPETrPET punnetspunnets \vrapped\vrapped inin eithereither PLAPLA oror rPETrPET pillowpillow hadhad aa reducedreduced GHGGHG emissionemission ofof approxl.­approxl.­matelymately 190/0,190/0, tbetbe paperboardpaperboard andand corrugatedcorrugated fiberboardfiberboard punnetspunnets hadhad aa

40R40R // 301301 II 30L30L 501/50L501/50L 0%0%

:):)

l±:.l±:. -10%-10% Q)Q)

0'''0''' II

oo -20%-20% +!+! __ OJOJ xx

<.:5<.:5 II -30%-30% (.:J(.:J

.£:.£: Q)Q) ()() -40%-40% cc Q)Q)

Q:,Q:, :::::::: -50%-50%i5i5

CDCDOJOJ~~ -60%-60% a5a5 uu (j)(j)

a...a... -70%-70%

-80%-80% -'----------------'---------------........------.---------.----------.---------.---- ........------..........

FigureFigure 8.8. PercentagePercentage DifferenceDifference inin GreenhouseGreenhouse GasesGases (COjB)(COjB) ComparedCompared toto Clam­Clam­

shellshell

temate lJe"_I"-u:;;;::,

RPET or lowestenergy approx 14% J'YO Iy 1ll

comparison to PET clamshells. The paper based alternatives over-a 11 had a decreased energy usage In the range of 3-~6%)

companson Scenano J reflects an approxImate otthe munici solid waste treatment rates in the U.S 18.1 In Sccnano1 , the RP ET punnets n PLA or rP ET pli 1()\VS sho\ved Ihl~

lo\,vest energy use \vith 140/0 and 13%, Iy 1ll

comparison to the PET clamshells. All paper based alternatIves wereapproximately at par.

4.1.2 Creenhouse Cas (COle) Results

Figure 8 shows the percentage differerlce 111 G HG em iss Ions (COle)for all systenls studied in comparison to the PET clamshells 11 wasobserved that all alternate systems contrIbuted SIgnificantly lower GHGem iss ions for both end-of- life scenarios when com pared to the trad 1­

tional PET clamshells. For Scenano I, while the rPET punnets \vrappedin either PLA or rPET pillow had a reduced GHG emission of approxl.­mately 190/0, tbe paperboard and corrugated fiberboard punnets had a

40R / 301 I 30L0%

:)

l±:. -10%Q)

0''' I

o -20% +! _OJx

<.:5I -30%(.:J

.£:Q) -40%()cQ)

Q:,:::: -50%i5

CDOJ~ -60%a5u(j)

-70%a...

501/50L

-80% -'---------------....------.---------.----....---.....

Figure 8. Percentage Difference in Greenhouse Gases (COjB) Compared to Clam-

shell

temate lJe"_I"-u:;;;::,

RPET or lowestenergy approx 14% J'YO Iy 1ll

comparison to PET clamshells. The paper based alternatives over-a 11 had a decreased energy usage In the range of 3-~6%)

companson Scenano J reflects an approxImate otthe munici solid waste treatment rates in the U.S 18.1 In Sccnano1 , the RP ET punnets n PLA or rP ET pli 1()\VS sho\ved Ihl~

lo\,vest energy use \vith 140/0 and 13%, Iy 1ll

comparison to the PET clamshells. All paper based alternatIves wereapproximately at par.

4.1.2 Creenhouse Cas (COle) Results

Figure 8 shows the percentage differerlce 111 G HG em iss Ions (COle)for all systenls studied in comparison to the PET clamshells 11 wasobserved that all alternate systems contrIbuted SIgnificantly lower GHGem iss ions for both end-of- life scenarios when com pared to the trad 1­

tional PET clamshells. For Scenano I, while the rPET punnets \vrappedin either PLA or rPET pillow had a reduced GHG emission of approxl.­mately 190/0, tbe paperboard and corrugated fiberboard punnets had a

40R / 301 I 30L0%

:)

l±:. -10%Q)

0''' I

o -20% +! _OJx

<.:5I -30%(.:J

.£:Q) -40%()cQ)

Q:,:::: -50%i5

CDOJ~ -60%a5u(j)

-70%a...

501/50L

-80% -'---------------....------.---------.----....---.....

Figure 8. Percentage Difference in Greenhouse Gases (COjB) Compared to Clam-

shell

AA

FigureFigure 9.9. Over8/1Over8/1 ScorecardScorecard ResultsResults (100(100 Maximum).Maximum).

debitdebit rangmgrangmg betweenbetween 13-170/0.13-170/0. TheThe moldedmolded pulppulp traystrays hadhad aa dramaticdramatic reductionreduction inin GHGGHG emissionsemissions ofof approximatelyapproximately 670/0670/0 byby comparison.comparison. ForFor ScenarioScenario II,II, whilewhile thethe rPETrPET punnetspunnets wrappedwrapped inin eithereither PLAPLA oror rPETrPET pillowpillow hadhad aa reducedreduced GHGGHG emissionemission ofof approximatelyapproximately 170/0,170/0, thethe paper­paper­boardboard andand fifi berboardberboard punnetspunnets hadhad aa debidebi tt rangingranging betweenbetween II "r'he"r'he moldedmolded pulppulp traystrays hadhad aa dramaticdramatic reductionreduction inin GHGGHG emissionsemissions ofof approximatelyapproximately 730/0730/0 byby comparison.comparison.

4.1.34.1.3 ScorecardScorecard ResultsResults

'rable'rable 33 andand 99 showshow thethe resultsresults inin thethe SavvyPack®SavvyPack® scorecardscorecard formatformat ItIt maymay bebe seenseen thatthat whenwhen comparedcompared toto thethe PETPET clamshells,clamshells, thethe rPETrPET clamshellclamshell andand bothboth corrugatedcorrugated fiberboardfiberboard systemssystems werewere onlyonly

betterbetter "rhe"rhe rPE"rrPE"r punnet,punnet, paperboardpaperboard punnetpunnet andand moldedmolded pulppulp onon thethe otherother hand,hand, scoredscored 47-49%47-49% higherhigher byby comparison.comparison.

5.05.0

TheThe mainmain purposepurpose uncompli­thisthis studystudy waswas toto provideprovide aa relativelyrelatively uncompli­toto serveserve asas aa decisiondecision makingmaking tooltool whenwhen moremore thanthan

oneone analy­solutionsolution isis availableavailable toto aa user.user. ItIt conductedconducted aa LeILeI analy­

A

Figure 9. Over8/1 Scorecard Results (100 Maximum).

debit rangmg between 13-170/0. The molded pulp trays had a dramaticreduction in GHG emissions of approximately 670/0 by comparison. ForScenario II, while the rPET punnets wrapped in either PLA or rPETpillow had a reduced GHG emission of approximately 170/0, the paper­board and fi berboard punnets had a debi t ranging betweenI "r'he molded pulp trays had a dramatic reduction in GHGemissions of approximately 730/0 by comparison.

4.1.3 Scorecard Results

'rable 3 and 9 show the results in the SavvyPack® scorecardformat It may be seen that when compared to the PET clamshells,the rPET clamshell and both corrugated fiberboard systems were only

better "rhe rPE"r punnet, paperboard punnet and molded pulpon the other hand, scored 47-49% higher by comparison.

5.0

The main purpose this study was to provide a relatively uncompli-to serve as a decision making tool when more than

one solution is available to a user. It conducted a LeI analy-

A

Figure 9. Over8/1 Scorecard Results (100 Maximum).

debit rangmg between 13-170/0. The molded pulp trays had a dramaticreduction in GHG emissions of approximately 670/0 by comparison. ForScenario II, while the rPET punnets wrapped in either PLA or rPETpillow had a reduced GHG emission of approximately 170/0, the paper­board and fi berboard punnets had a debi t ranging betweenI "r'he molded pulp trays had a dramatic reduction in GHGemissions of approximately 730/0 by comparison.

4.1.3 Scorecard Results

'rable 3 and 9 show the results in the SavvyPack® scorecardformat It may be seen that when compared to the PET clamshells,the rPET clamshell and both corrugated fiberboard systems were only

better "rhe rPE"r punnet, paperboard punnet and molded pulpon the other hand, scored 47-49% higher by comparison.

5.0

The main purpose this study was to provide a relatively uncompli-to serve as a decision making tool when more than

one solution is available to a user. It conducted a LeI analy-

andand AA KRASO\NSKIKRASO\NSKI

thethe supportsupport andand andand ScienceScience atat

HfC'r,-'""HfC'r,-'"" asas wellwell asas AlliedAllied DevelopmentDevelopment

~Al"n,nHHl~Al"n,nHHl 'fr<.>t.v",.pn'fr<.>t.v",.pnee "" CGfl1ml5SIonCGfl1ml5SIon BestBest HandlmgHandlmg PracticesPractices forfor Strawbernes.Strawbernes. www.calstraw­www.calstraw­NovemberNovember 23.23. 20092009

22 ofof AgricultureAgriculture EWnOIl1lCS,EWnOIl1lCS, StatisticsStatistics andand MarketMarket InformationInformation Sys-Sys-U.SU.S IndustryIndustry (95003).(95003). AvailableAvailable atat hnp://usda.mannlib.comell.edu/MannUs-hnp://usda.mannlib.comell.edu/MannUs-

d&/vH~wDocumemInfo.do?documentld&/vH~wDocumemInfo.do?documentlD=D= 1381,1381, accessedaccessed NovemberNovember 24,24, 20092009

33 ISOISO 1404014040 (2006)(2006) EnVironmentalEnVironmental management--lifemanagement--life cyclecycle assessment-principlesassessment-principles andand frameworkframework ISOISO 14040:2006.14040:2006.SingJlSingJl SP,SP, ChonhenchobChonhenchob V,V, SmghSmgh JJ LiteLite con­1I1ventory1I1ventory andand analysisanalysis ofof re-usablere-usable plastIcplastIc con­lamerslamers andand display-readydisplay-ready wrrugatedwrrugated usedused forfor packagmgpackagmg freshfresh frUitsfrUits andand vegetables.vegetables. fJack.a;;{inf!,fJack.a;;{inf!, Techn%gyTechn%gy andand Science,Science, 2006.2006. 19'19' 279-293279-293

Elbourne,Elbourne, PP ReducmgReducmg food-relatedfood-related greenhousegreenhouse gasgas emissionsemissions throughthrough locallocal productionproduction ofof fruitfruit andand vegetables.vegetables. /\/\ reportreport forfor AlnessAlness TownTown TransitionTransition Group,Group, UK,UK, JulyJuly 20092009 AvailableAvailable atat http://www.communitypowerdown.org.uk/uscrfiles/file/documcnts/Dehverables%5CLocal_http://www.communitypowerdown.org.uk/uscrfiles/file/documcnts/Dehverables%5CLocal_ FoodFood ProdProd ueluel ion/Pcter%20ion/Pcter%20 ElEl bourne%J20-%20bourne%J20-%20 LocalLocal %20%20 FFood%20ood%20 Productlon%20GProductlon%20G HHG%G% 20SavlIlg5.pdt:20SavlIlg5.pdt: accessedaccessed NovemberNovember 25,200925,2009

6.6. Blanke,Blanke, MM LifeLife cyclecycle andand carboncarbon footprintfootprint ofof ImportedImported HuelvaHuelva StrawbernesStrawbernes LIfeLIfe CycleCycle AssessmentAssessment IXIX 29-Dcto­Proceedings,Proceedings, Boston,Boston, Massachusetts,Massachusetts, SeptemberSeptember 29-Dcto­berber 2,20092,2009

77 AnnualAnnual Report,Report, 20072007 CalculationCalculation ofof thethe COLCOL rucksacksrucksacks ofof ImportedImported versusversus regionallyregionally pro­pro­dduedued goods.goods. SustamablSustamabl ee EuropeEurope ResearchResearch InstituteInstitute (SERI),(SERI), GarnisongasseGarnisongasse 7/27,7/27, 10901090 Vienna,Vienna, Austria.Austria.

8.8. Aranda,Aranda, A.,A., S.,S., Zabalza,Zabalza, II andand ValeroValero Capilla,Capilla, A.A. AnAn analysisanalysis ofof thethe presentpresent food'sfood's transporttransport modelmodel onon aa casecase studystudy camedcamed outout mm Spam.Spam. ProceedingsProceedings oj/heoj/he 6/h6/h 1m.1m. Can!Can! onon II ('A('A inin fhpfhp Apri-FnndApri-Fnnd C.'Pf'int'C.'Pf'int' 71/t'if'h71/t'if'h Nilv,'mhf>rNilv,'mhf>r 117-147-14 7nm~,7nm~, nnnn 117-414117-414

99 Wal-MartWal-Mart PressPress Release.Release. NovemberNovember 1,2006.1,2006. Wal-ManWal-Man UnveilsUnveils "Packagmg"Packagmg Swrecard"Swrecard" toto Sup­Sup­pipi iers.iers. hnp://walrnanstores.eom/pressroom/news/6039.aspxhnp://walrnanstores.eom/pressroom/news/6039.aspx AccessedAccessed FebruaryFebruary 20,20, 2020 IIO.O.

1010 I':ide,I':ide, MM IIII LireLire CycleCycle AssessmentAssessment (LCA)(LCA) oror IndustrialIndustrial MilkMilk Production,Production, /nl./nl. J.J. LCA,LCA, 77 (2),(2), 115-126115-126 (2002).(2002).

IIII UU SS EnvironmentalEnvironmental ProtectionProtection AgencyAgency (2009)(2009) MuniCipalMuniCipal SolidSolid WasteWaste Generation,Generation, RecycllIlg,RecycllIlg, andand DisposalDisposal mm thethe UnitedUnited StatesStates FactsFacts andand FiguresFigures 20082008

12.12. EnvironmentalEnvironmental andand EnergyEnergy StudyStudy InstituteInstitute ReconsldenngReconsldenng MuniCipalMuniCipal SolidSolid WasteWaste asas aa Renew­Renew­ableable EnergyEnergy FeedstockFeedstock IssueIssue 13rief13rief JulyJuly 20092009

IIJJ EnvironmentalEnvironmental ProtectionProtection r'\gencyr'\gency LFGLFG EnergyEnergy ProjectProject DevelopmentDevelopment Handbook,Handbook, ChapterChapter II EnvironmentalEnvironmental ProtectionProtection Agency,Agency, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/res/pdJ/pdh_chapterl.pdf,http://www.epa.gov/lmop/res/pdJ/pdh_chapterl.pdf, 20092009 AccessedAccessed MayMay 18.18. 2020 II00

1414 HazardOUSHazardOUS WasteWaste ResourceResource CenterCenter HazardousHazardous WasteWaste Inemeration.Inemeration. AdvancedAdvanced TechnologyTechnology toto ProtectProtect thethe Environment.Environment. EnvironmentalEnvironmental TechnologyTechnology Center,Center, hnp://www.etc.org/technologica­hnp://www.etc.org/technologica­landcnvironmentallsslles/treatmenncchnologles/incineratiolandcnvironmentallsslles/treatmenncchnologles/incineration/.n/. 2000.2000. AccessedAccessed MayMay 18,18, 2020 II00

1515 KaiKai Sipilti,Sipilti, MunicipalMunicipal andand CommerCialCommerCial SolidSolid WasteWaste forfor PyrolysisPyrolysis (Oils)(Oils) andand GasificationGasification Mar­Mar­kets.kets. \ITT\ITT Processes,Processes, http://www.pync.co.ukJdocs/488.pdf,http://www.pync.co.ukJdocs/488.pdf, 2002.2002. AccessedAccessed MayMay 18,2018,20 IIO.O.

16.16. Zarllr,Zarllr, SS GasificationGasification ofof MuniCipalMuniCipal SolidSolid Waste.Waste. EarthtoysEarthtoys Magazll1e,Magazll1e, http://www.earthtoyshttp://www.earthtoys com/crnagszHlc.php?issuccom/crnagszHlc.php?issuc _numbcf""09.06.0_numbcf""09.06.0 II&article=zarar,&article=zarar, 20092009 AccessedAccessed MayMay 18,2018,20 IIO.O.

and A KRASO\NSKI

the support andand Science at

HfC'r,-'"" as well as Allied Development

~Al"n,nHHl 'fr<.>t.v",.pne" CGfl1ml5SIon Best Handlmg Practices for Strawbernes. www.calstraw­November 23. 2009

2 of Agriculture EWnOIl1lCS, Statistics and Market Information Sys-U.S Industry (95003). Available at hnp://usda.mannlib.comell.edu/MannUs-

d&/vH~wDocumemInfo.do?documentlD= 1381, accessed November 24, 2009

3 ISO 14040 (2006) EnVironmental management--life cycle assessment-principles andframework ISO 14040:2006.SingJl SP, Chonhenchob V, Smgh J Lite 1I1ventory and analysis of re-usable plastIc con-lamers and display-ready wrrugated used for packagmg fresh frUits and vegetables.fJack.a;;{inf!, Techn%gy and Science, 2006. 19' 279-293

Elbourne, P Reducmg food-related greenhouse gas emissions through local production offruit and vegetables. /\ report for Alness Town Transition Group, UK, July 2009 Available athttp://www.communitypowerdown.org.uk/uscrfiles/file/documcnts/Dehverables%5CLocal_Food Prod uel ion/Pcter%20 El bourne%J20-%20 Local %20 Food%20 Productlon%20G HG%20SavlIlg5.pdt: accessed November 25,2009

6. Blanke, M Life cycle and carbon footprint of Imported Huelva Strawbernes LIfeCycle Assessment IX Proceedings, Boston, Massachusetts, September 29-Dcto-ber 2,2009

7 Annual Report, 2007 Calculation of the COL rucksacks of Imported versus regionally pro­dued goods. Sustamabl e Europe Research Institute (SERI), Garnisongasse 7/27, 1090 Vienna,Austria.

8. Aranda, A., S., Zabalza, I and Valero Capilla, A. An analysis of the present food'stransport model on a case study camed out m Spam. Proceedings oj/he 6/h 1m. Can! onI ('A in fhp Apri-Fnnd C.'Pf'int' 71/t'if'h Nilv,'mhf>r 17-14 7nm~, nn 117-414

9 Wal-Mart Press Release. November 1,2006. Wal-Man Unveils "Packagmg Swrecard" to Sup­pi iers. hnp://walrnanstores.eom/pressroom/news/6039.aspx Accessed February 20, 20 IO.

10 I':ide, M II Lire Cycle Assessment (LCA) or Industrial Milk Production, /nl. J. LCA, 7 (2),115-126 (2002).

II U S Environmental Protection Agency (2009) MuniCipal Solid Waste Generation, RecycllIlg,and Disposal m the United States Facts and Figures 2008

12. Environmental and Energy Study Institute Reconsldenng MuniCipal Solid Waste as a Renew­able Energy Feedstock Issue 13rief July 2009

IJ Environmental Protection r'\gency LFG Energy Project Development Handbook, Chapter IEnvironmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/res/pdJ/pdh_chapterl.pdf, 2009Accessed May 18. 20 I0

14 HazardOUS Waste Resource Center Hazardous Waste Inemeration. Advanced Technology toProtect the Environment. Environmental Technology Center, hnp://www.etc.org/technologica­landcnvironmentallsslles/treatmenncchnologles/incineration/. 2000. Accessed May 18, 20 I0

15 Kai Sipilti, Municipal and CommerCial Solid Waste for Pyrolysis (Oils) and Gasification Mar­kets. \ITT Processes, http://www.pync.co.ukJdocs/488.pdf, 2002. Accessed May 18,20 IO.

16. Zarllr, S Gasification of MuniCipal Solid Waste. Earthtoys Magazll1e, http://www.earthtoyscom/crnagszHlc.php?issuc _numbcf""09.06.0 I&article=zarar, 2009 Accessed May 18,20 IO.

and A KRASO\NSKI

the support andand Science at

HfC'r,-'"" as well as Allied Development

~Al"n,nHHl 'fr<.>t.v",.pne" CGfl1ml5SIon Best Handlmg Practices for Strawbernes. www.calstraw­November 23. 2009

2 of Agriculture EWnOIl1lCS, Statistics and Market Information Sys-U.S Industry (95003). Available at hnp://usda.mannlib.comell.edu/MannUs-

d&/vH~wDocumemInfo.do?documentlD= 1381, accessed November 24, 2009

3 ISO 14040 (2006) EnVironmental management--life cycle assessment-principles andframework ISO 14040:2006.SingJl SP, Chonhenchob V, Smgh J Lite 1I1ventory and analysis of re-usable plastIc con-lamers and display-ready wrrugated used for packagmg fresh frUits and vegetables.fJack.a;;{inf!, Techn%gy and Science, 2006. 19' 279-293

Elbourne, P Reducmg food-related greenhouse gas emissions through local production offruit and vegetables. /\ report for Alness Town Transition Group, UK, July 2009 Available athttp://www.communitypowerdown.org.uk/uscrfiles/file/documcnts/Dehverables%5CLocal_Food Prod uel ion/Pcter%20 El bourne%J20-%20 Local %20 Food%20 Productlon%20G HG%20SavlIlg5.pdt: accessed November 25,2009

6. Blanke, M Life cycle and carbon footprint of Imported Huelva Strawbernes LIfeCycle Assessment IX Proceedings, Boston, Massachusetts, September 29-Dcto-ber 2,2009

7 Annual Report, 2007 Calculation of the COL rucksacks of Imported versus regionally pro­dued goods. Sustamabl e Europe Research Institute (SERI), Garnisongasse 7/27, 1090 Vienna,Austria.

8. Aranda, A., S., Zabalza, I and Valero Capilla, A. An analysis of the present food'stransport model on a case study camed out m Spam. Proceedings oj/he 6/h 1m. Can! onI ('A in fhp Apri-Fnnd C.'Pf'int' 71/t'if'h Nilv,'mhf>r 17-14 7nm~, nn 117-414

9 Wal-Mart Press Release. November 1,2006. Wal-Man Unveils "Packagmg Swrecard" to Sup­pi iers. hnp://walrnanstores.eom/pressroom/news/6039.aspx Accessed February 20, 20 IO.

10 I':ide, M II Lire Cycle Assessment (LCA) or Industrial Milk Production, /nl. J. LCA, 7 (2),115-126 (2002).

II U S Environmental Protection Agency (2009) MuniCipal Solid Waste Generation, RecycllIlg,and Disposal m the United States Facts and Figures 2008

12. Environmental and Energy Study Institute Reconsldenng MuniCipal Solid Waste as a Renew­able Energy Feedstock Issue 13rief July 2009

IJ Environmental Protection r'\gency LFG Energy Project Development Handbook, Chapter IEnvironmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/res/pdJ/pdh_chapterl.pdf, 2009Accessed May 18. 20 I0

14 HazardOUS Waste Resource Center Hazardous Waste Inemeration. Advanced Technology toProtect the Environment. Environmental Technology Center, hnp://www.etc.org/technologica­landcnvironmentallsslles/treatmenncchnologles/incineration/. 2000. Accessed May 18, 20 I0

15 Kai Sipilti, Municipal and CommerCial Solid Waste for Pyrolysis (Oils) and Gasification Mar­kets. \ITT Processes, http://www.pync.co.ukJdocs/488.pdf, 2002. Accessed May 18,20 IO.

16. Zarllr, S Gasification of MuniCipal Solid Waste. Earthtoys Magazll1e, http://www.earthtoyscom/crnagszHlc.php?issuc _numbcf""09.06.0 I&article=zarar, 2009 Accessed May 18,20 IO.

UteUte

jj 77 PlasmaPlasma CorporEnonCorporEnon \I'-hat\I'-hat isis Plasl1nPlasl1n (\:(\: GasltlC1ltllHl"GasltlC1ltllHl" PlaSm!1PlaSm!1 Corporation,Corporation, ht1p:ht1p: \\'w,,"\\'w,," Si)lullunsw!lntSi)lullunsw!lnt ISIS plasmnplasmn

gaslficHlonphp,gaslficHlonphp, 20072007 AccessedAccessed

\8� Psomopoulos,Psomopoulos, CC SS ,A,A Bourka,Bourka, andand ThcmcllsThcmclls \\'aste\\'aste ttlttl II n<:r'2,\n<:r'2,\ -\-\ Sta­\8 ~\n~\n In\In\ ofof tht'tht' Sta­tustus andand BenefitsBenefits InIn tl1C'tl1C' UnitedUnited Stall'S,Stall'S, \VaslC\VaslC IVianagemcnt.IVianagemcnt. http:http: '\\\\'\\',llm\\'t!n,ol"gIlt'WS'\\\\'\\',llm\\'t!n,ol"gIlt'WS documcntsrrab3-PsomopoulosctaI2009WTEstatusandbcndits2.I'dI'.documcntsrrab3-PsomopoulosctaI2009WTEstatusandbcndits2.I'dI'. 200\l200\l Ac\'csscdAc\'csscd 1\1ay1\1ay 18.18. 20102010

19� Ramsey/Washll1gtonRamsey/Washll1gton CoulltyCoullty ResourceResource RecoveryRecovery Pl'()JCC(Pl'()JCC( UpdnkdUpdnkd ResearchResearch Study'Study' tkn­19 (insl(insl tkn­{(on.{(on. Plasma,Plasma, Ethanol.Ethanol. andand /\nacrOblc/\nacrOblc DlgestlonDlgestlon \Vastc\Vastc Technoll)glcsTechnoll)glcs h1{hh1{h IInll'H-nll'H-StructureStructure andand EnVironment.EnVironment. LI.CLI.C ProjectProject ii DD 0707 ROOROO I.I. MayMay

Ute

j 7 Plasma CorporEnon \I'-hat is Plasl1n (\: GasltlC1ltllHl" PlaSm!1Corporation, ht1p: \\'w,," Si)lullunsw!lnt IS plasmn

gaslficHlonphp, 2007 Accessed

\8 Psomopoulos, C S ,A Bourka, and Thcmclls \\'aste ttl I n<:r'2,\ -\ ~\n In\ of tht' Sta-tus and Benefits In tl1C' United Stall'S, \VaslC IVianagemcnt. http: '\\\\'\\',llm\\'t!n,ol"gIlt'WSdocumcntsrrab3-PsomopoulosctaI2009WTEstatusandbcndits2.I'dI'. 200\l Ac\'csscd 1\1ay 18.2010

19 Ramsey/Washll1gton Coullty Resource Recovery Pl'()JCC( Updnkd Research Study' (insl tkn-{(on. Plasma, Ethanol. and /\nacrOblc Dlgestlon \Vastc Technoll)glcs h1{h Inll'H-Structure and EnVironment. LI.C Project i D 07 ROO I. May

Ute

j 7 Plasma CorporEnon \I'-hat is Plasl1n (\: GasltlC1ltllHl" PlaSm!1Corporation, ht1p: \\'w,," Si)lullunsw!lnt IS plasmn

gaslficHlonphp, 2007 Accessed

\8 Psomopoulos, C S ,A Bourka, and Thcmclls \\'aste ttl I n<:r'2,\ -\ ~\n In\ of tht' Sta-tus and Benefits In tl1C' United Stall'S, \VaslC IVianagemcnt. http: '\\\\'\\',llm\\'t!n,ol"gIlt'WSdocumcntsrrab3-PsomopoulosctaI2009WTEstatusandbcndits2.I'dI'. 200\l Ac\'csscd 1\1ay 18.2010

19 Ramsey/Washll1gton Coullty Resource Recovery Pl'()JCC( Updnkd Research Study' (insl tkn-{(on. Plasma, Ethanol. and /\nacrOblc Dlgestlon \Vastc Technoll)glcs h1{h Inll'H-Structure and EnVironment. LI.C Project i D 07 ROO I. May