Abstract
The influence of the bottle material (glass, PET), the reusability (reusable and disposable bottles), and the carbonization (still, medium, classic mineral water) on the filling ratio, packaging material use efficiency, cost, and shelf life were evaluated. Two hundred different bottles were purchased and characterized regarding their filling volume, the weight of the bottle, the weight of the closure, the weight of the label, and the maximum full-rim volume of the bottle. The packaging material use efficiency was calculated. The shelf life was evaluated by calculating the water vapor and carbon dioxide transmission rates. The ratio of filling volume to the packaging weight of disposable PET bottles was, on average, two times higher compared to returnable PET bottles and 20 times higher compared to glass bottles. Shelf life was, on average, higher than factor two for glass bottles compared to PET bottles. On average, but not in all cases, mineral water packaged in disposable PET bottles was cheaper compared to reusable PET and glass bottles. This paper provides a benchmark for the packaging community, especially when data for life cycle assessment are required, and the different advantages and disadvantages of different bottle materials for mineral water are shown.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
