Abstract
Due to the serious problem of plastic pollution in aquatic environment, many people reject plastic packaging in favour of glass containers which are considered more sustainable. To avoid misjudgements, the sustainability assessment of packaging alternatives should be carried out with a life cycle thinking approach. In this regard, the study presents a comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of two alternative packaging systems for drinking water: reusable glass bottles and polyethylene (PET) bottles. The case study was performed considering the real data of an Italian mineral water company that bottles and distributes both natural and sparkling water. The environmental impacts of the two packaging systems were estimated with the ReCiPe 2016 (H) evaluation method adopting both midpoint and endpoint approaches. The results showed that the PET bottle is the most sustainable alternative for natural water for many impact categories; while, in the case of sparkling water, the environmental impacts of the two packaging systems are similar and the most environmentally sound solution can vary depending on the impact category. The following are the most significant aspects of the analysis: (1) the number of reuses of a single glass bottle; (2) the distribution distance. Their variation can determine which packaging is the most sustainable. Therefore, a life cycle assessment approach is needed for each specific case.
Highlights
The serious environmental problem of plastic marine pollution has caused a growing global concern [1]
At the European level, the “Single-Use Plastics Directive” (Directive (EU) 2019/904) sets new targets to limit the adoption of single-use plastic packaging as well as to banish completely specific single-use plastic products
The values are reported in percentage terms, in function of the system with the highest impact value for each category. -tgineorgrnisaeTyFbosti,shieovltwtes.eewsmIhrfiteeolisliserresunwetfelshottexosehrrpueehptrrhieashcgeisceihmgsksslephaiisgdlgaeachirrarinktnrheaglcdienkinoatdgtgyfth,iotnwnahtiahtgleat-atutevhbetqraeerca.lsotlPu[thn2wEeae8sTlaoi]etdtefnbereavornrtiwafsrtoltoetiisnvhtshwmeeiltacFehrshneoeasttshagonsleruiglepermaFecdtueroefaessoacttlnrcemPndonuoravtdmtnheiircenbnoegetensirnamtooolef,efrttdngihhmeyteeafiplctilnmowayecnopsdttioaenpaucngastntcccdtkohaaafttaegeecl----rruatdioe 3g.oRryescuonltssidaenrdedD. iTshceursesfioorne, in this case, it is not possible to uniquely identify the most sustainable solution
Summary
The serious environmental problem of plastic marine pollution has caused a growing global concern [1]. In this regard, at the European level, the “Single-Use Plastics Directive” (Directive (EU) 2019/904) sets new targets to limit the adoption of single-use plastic packaging (i.e., cups for beverages, including their covers and lids, and food containers) as well as to banish completely specific single-use plastic products (i.e., cotton bud sticks, cutlery, plates, straws, beverage stirrers, sticks to be attached to and to support balloons, food containers made of expanded polystyrene, beverage containers made of expanded polystyrene including their caps and lids, and cups for beverages made of expanded polystyrene including their covers and lids). LCA allows for the comparison of the potential environmental impacts occurring during all the life cycle phases (e.g., raw material extraction, manufacturing, processing, packaging, transportation, use, end-of-life) of alternative systems [4]
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
