Abstract
The aim of this study is to carry out a comparative analysis of the environmental impact of different packaging systems used for extended shelf life milk. The analysis, carried out exploiting the life cycle assessment approach, takes into account the packaging manufacturing process, the food packaging process, the transport phases and the end‐of‐life management of the different packaging systems. The packaging end‐of‐life is modelled by considering three possible options, such as recycling, thermo‐valorization with energy recovery and landfill. One litre of extended shelf life milk is used as the reference unit, while multilayer cartons, polyethylene terephthalate bottles labelled with shrink sleeve film and high‐density polyethylene bottles are analysed as the packaging types.The key characteristics of each component of the three packaging systems were either provided by packaging manufacturers or derived from data available in literature. The evaluation of the end‐of‐life impact was performed considering the Italian scenario, exploiting, in particular, the data provided by specific Italian consortia. Other data for the inventory analysis phase were extrapolated from the SimaPro databases (e.g. Ecoinvent or Plastic Europe Database). Cumulative energy demand and CML2001 were adopted as the impact assessment methods.The results obtained show that the multilayer carton system is the less environmentally impactful option for almost all the considered impact categories and that its environmental impacts are, on average, more than 12% lower than high‐density polyethylene system and more than 34% lower than polyethylene terephthalate with shrink sleeve label. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Highlights
IntroductionThe packaging sector generates about 2% of the gross national product in developed countries, and about half of this packaging is used for food.[2] On average, in 2012, every European citizen (Eu-28) generated 156.8 kg of packaging waste, 40% of which consists in paper and board, 20% in glass, 19% in plastic, 15% in wood and 6% in metals.[3] Overall, the packaging life cycle generates significant environmental impacts; its production exploits natural resources and energy and causes environmental emissions.[4] packaging waste generates increasing disposal issues, being the second largest fraction of municipal waste after the organic fraction.[5] In developed counties, modern endof-life management systems can partially decrease the environmental impacts of packaging; M
In today’s society, packaging has a key role for sustainability: it is no longer possible that people involved in the design, development, production or use of packaging do not consider the environmental consequences of their work.[1]The packaging sector generates about 2% of the gross national product in developed countries, and about half of this packaging is used for food.[2]
The overall impact generated by the use of PET with shrink sleeve label for ESL milk is reported in the first column of Table 4
Summary
The packaging sector generates about 2% of the gross national product in developed countries, and about half of this packaging is used for food.[2] On average, in 2012, every European citizen (Eu-28) generated 156.8 kg of packaging waste, 40% of which consists in paper and board, 20% in glass, 19% in plastic, 15% in wood and 6% in metals.[3] Overall, the packaging life cycle generates significant environmental impacts; its production exploits natural resources and energy and causes environmental emissions.[4] packaging waste generates increasing disposal issues, being the second largest fraction of municipal waste after the organic fraction.[5] In developed counties, modern endof-life management systems can partially decrease the environmental impacts of packaging; M.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
