Life Cycle Assessment of consumer packaging for liquid food
-Resultsfor the Danishmarket
On commision of Tetra Pak
Copenhagen, 2 September 2009
Elin Eriksson, Kristian Jelse, Elin Einarson & Tomas Ekvall, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute IVL is an internationally recognised environmental institute
Research and consultancy – environment and sustainable development – founded in 1966 –about 170 employees Global basis – experienced project coordinators of large EU and other international projects -situated at the campuses of the Royal Institute of Technology (Stockholm) and Chalmers University of Technology (Gothenburg) Resource-efficient products
–Life cycleassessment(LCA), life cyclecostanalysis(LCC), Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) –Climatedeclarations, EnvironmentalProductDeclarations –Environmentally-adaptedproductdevelopment LCA Goal and scope
Analyse the environmental performance of 29 packaging systems using life cycle assessment (LCA) –Tetra Pak packaging in liquid carton board –Alternative packaging Identify improvement areas Construct a flexible LCA model for future use Intended use: –Discussions with stakeholders – Increase knowledge internally Possible future uses: –EPD, carbon footprint, etc. LCA – from cradle to grave
Forestry Recycling / waste management
Consumer
Retail
Filling
Paperboard production Converting ”From cradle Life cycle to grave”
Resource extraction and Material resources material production Energy resources Land use
Production
Use Emissions Waste Recycling and waste LCA performed in management accordance with ISO 14044 Third party critical reviewers
Tiina Pajula, KCL, Finland (Oy Keskuslaboratorio - Centrallaboratorium Ab) Catharina Hohenthal, KCL, Finland Andreas Brekke, Erik Svanes, Ostfold Research, Norway Dairy packaging
Weight Size incl. cap Chilled (ml) (g)
Tetra Brik Aseptic Base 1000 25.3 No
Tetra Brik Aseptic Edge with light cap 1000 30.7 No
Tetra Brik Base 1000 27 Yes
Tetra Brik Edge with screwcap 1000 29.3 Yes
Tetra Rex with small screwcap 1000 31.2 Yes
Tetra Rex Plus with cap 1000 31.2 Yes
Gable top with large cap 1000 32.7 Yes
PET bottle with cap 1000 26 Yes
HDPE bottle with cap 1000 28.5 Yes Juice packaging
Weight Size w. cap Chilled (ml) (g)
Tetra Brik Aseptic Slim with Slimcap 1000 31.7 No
Tetra Gemina Aseptic with StreamCap 1000 35.1 No
Tetra Prisma Aseptic with StreamCap 1000 39.5 No
Tetra Top with cap 1000 32.7 Yes
Gable top with large cap 1000 32.7 Yes
Tetra Rex with small cap 1000 32.3 Yes
PET bottle with cap 1000 26 Yes
HDPE bottle with cap 1000 28.5 Yes Grab & Go (250-500 ml) and Micro Grab & Go (100 ml)
Size Weight w. Chilled (ml) cap (g) Tetra Prisma Aseptic with Pulltab 250 10.3 No Tetra Brik Aseptic 250 9.8 No Tetra Prisma Aseptic with Streamcap 500 22.7 No Tetra Top HAAD with cap 250 14.2 No APET bottle with cap 500 26.1 No Glass bottle with metal cap 250 203 No PET bottle with cap 250 21.8 Yes HDPE bottle with cap 380 34 Yes Tetra Top Micro 100 7.4 (5.8*) Yes HDPE Bottle with Al foil 100 9.5 (7.1*) Yes
* Weight excl. carton tray Impact categories
Global warming potential, e.g. CO2, CH4 (methane) and N2O (lauging gas)
Acidification potential, e.g. SO2 and NOx.
Eutrophication potential, e.g. NOxand phosphates Photochemical oxidant formation, e.g. VOC, (Volatile Organic Compounds) and hydrocarbons Ozone depletion potential, e.g. freones*) In the report, the following inventory data are also presented: –Primary energy use –Fresh water use
*) Data may be outdated, therefore not so relevant Included Life Cycle Phases
1. Forestry & Paperboard 2. Plastic, Metal & Glass 3. Cap, top and straw 4. Primary packaging production 5. Secondary packaging production 6. Filling 7. Transport to retail 8. Retail & Consumer (sensitivity analysis) 9. Waste management 10.Avoided emissions
Chilling and transport from retail to consumer only included in the sensitivity analysis Methodology
System expansion at recycling and production of electricity and heat at waste incineration i.e. the benefit of using the material/energy is accounted for by a credit ("Avoided emissions") Electricity production: –National average mix in base case –Marginal electricity in sensitivity analysis
Biogenic CO2 not included (net flux is zero) Data sources
Data from Tetra Pak: –Material contents of packaging –Locationof converting –Convertingdata (per site) –Transport type and distances –Fillinglinedata –Recycling statistics for each market External data: –Site-specific data of paperboard production – Data from previous studies by Tetra Pak and IVL –Data from databases and literature, e.g. Skogforsk – Weights of alternative packaging currently on the market and general market data, such as Plastics Europe Results for the Danish market
Chilled dairy packaging Chilled & ambient juice packaging Ambient Grab & Go packaging Results chilled dairy packaging
Global warming (GWP100)
250
200
g CO2-eq. / litre / CO2-eq. g 150
100
50
0 Tetra Brik Tetra Brik Tetra Rex, Tetra Rex Gable Top, PET Bottle, HDPE Base, Edge, with with cap Plus, with with large with cap Bottle, with without cap cap cap cap cap Detailed results chilled dairy packaging
Global warming (GWP100) 250
200 Tetra Brik Base, without cap 150 Tetra Brik Edge, with cap
g CO2-eq. / litre 100 Tetra Rex, with cap
50 Tetra Rex Plus, with cap Gable Top, with large cap 0 PET Bottle, with cap -50 HDPE Bottle, with cap d il t L r aw ler lass str . Fil & TOTA perboa 06 agemen a tal & G production n emissions P e top d M ry & , tic Cap, . . Transport to reta rest as . Avoide l 03 0 P 07 1 Fo 08. Retail09. (& Waste Consumer) ma 01. 02. 04. Primary pack. 05. Secondary pack. production Detailed results chilled dairy packaging Eutrophication
60
50 Tetra Brik Base, without cap 40 Tetra Brik Edge, with cap 30 Tetra Rex, with cap 20 Tetra Rex Plus, with cap 10
mg phosphate-eq. / litre / phosphate-eq. mg Gable Top, with large cap
0 PET Bottle, with cap
-10 HDPE Bottle, with cap
-20
s il on on ns las i ti iller traw ct eta sio 6. F is TOTAL & G odu 0 t to r m or etal top & s p k. pr ck. produc , M ac a ans try & Paperboard r oided e tic y p as 3. Cap, 0 7. T 0. Av 0 1 09. Waste management 1. Fores 2. Pl 08. Retail (& Consumer) 0 0 04. Primar 05. Secondary p Results chilled juice packaging
Global warming (GWP100) 250
200 g CO2-eq. / litre 150
100
50
0 Tetra Top, Gable Top Tetra Rex with PET Bottle, HDPE Bottle, with cap with large cap small cap with cap with cap Detailed results chilled juice packaging
Global Warming (GWP100) 250
200
150 Tetra Top, with cap Gable Top with large cap 100
g CO2-eq. / litre g CO2-eq. Tetra Rex with small cap 50 PET Bottle, with cap 0 HDPE Bottle, with cap
-50
-100
d w n r il r) L r ss o e ta nt oa la tra e b s Fill r me r G ucti . sume e e & & duction d to n g TOTA ro ro 06 rt o top p o C Pap , p ana & Metal p ck. s m , ack. p a n (& e p ra il . Ca T ta stry stic 3 . e la 0 7 dary p 0 . Re . Wast P imary n 9 10. Avoided emissions . For . r 08 0 01 02 . P 04 05. Seco Detailed results juice packaging, chilled & ambient
Global Warming (GWP100) 250
200
150 Tetra Top, with cap
g CO2-eq.g litre/ 100 Gable Top with large cap
50 Tetra Rex with small cap
PET Bottle, with cap 0 HDPE Bottle, with cap -50 Tetra Brik Aseptic Slim, with cap -100 Tetra Gemina Aseptic, with cap s r l ) L on lle er nt A las ti tion i etai ions T straw c F r O rboard G T Tetra Prisma Aseptic, with cap e & oduc odu 06. t to al pr nageme Pap . . pr por Consuma d emiss & ck k s & , Met ac an de c pa r oi sti y y p a 3. Cap, top & 7. T 0 ar 0 0. Av imar 9. Waste1 m ond 0 Packaging systems that do not 1. Forestry Pr 08. Retail ( 0 02. Pl require chilling during distribution 04. Sec and storage. 05. Results ambient Grab & Go packaging
Global warming (GWP100)
350
300
250
g CO2-eq. / 0.5 litre 200
150
100
50
0 Tetra Tetra Brik Tetra Tetra Top APET 500, Glass 250, Prisma Aseptic Prisma HAAD 250, with cap with cap Aseptic 250, without Aseptic with cap 250, with cap 500, with pulltab cap
N.B. The scale of the Y-axis has changed Results for chilled dairy packaging
The studied plastic bottle systems have at 200 least three times higher emissions of 180 160 140 greenhouse gases than the carton board g CO2-eq. / litre g CO2-eq. 120 100 systems 80 60 40 Plastic bottles also results in higher 20 0 emissions of substances leading to Tetra Brik Tetra Brik Tetra Rex, Tetra Rex Gable Top PET HDPE Base, Edge, with with cap Plus, with with large Bottle, Bottle, without cap cap cap with cap with cap photochemical oxidant formation cap The emissions of the HDPE bottle is in the same order of magnitude for acidification and eutrophication potential as the carton board systems The PET bottle has higher environmental impact than the HDPE bottle Results for chilled carton board dairy packaging
Tetra Brik Base has the lowest environmental impact in all categories (not available in Danish market) Usage of plastic openings increases impact –Large opening has slightly higher impact than small opening for GT-style packages – Tetra Brik Base with no opening has 20-52% lower impact than Tetra Rex – The difference is caused by the production of plastics and waste treatment A sensitivity analysis for the Swedish market shows that ambient packaging gives lower emissions of greenhouse gases if stored chilled longer than 2-4 days at retail Results for juice packaging
Chilled packaging – Plastic bottles of HDPE and PET have at least 2.5 times higher emissions of greenhouse gases than carton board packaging –This is not the case for eutrophicationand acidification potential, where the emissions caused by the HDPE bottle is in the same order of magnitude as the carton board packaging Ambient packaging –For ambient packaging, Tetra Brik Aseptic Slim has the lowest environmental impact in all impact categories Studies should be carried out to determine the relative performance of chilled and ambient juice packaging Results for ambient Grab & Go packaging, 250-500 ml
350 The disposable glass bottle, followed by 300
250 APET 500 is the ambient packaging 200 system with the highest impact 150 100 Tetra Prisma Aseptic and Tetra Brik 50
0 Aseptic have the lowest emissions of Tetra Tetra Brik Tetra Tetra Top APET 500, Glass 250, Prisma Aseptic Prisma HAAD 250, with cap with cap Aseptic 250, without Aseptic with cap greenhouse gases 250, with cap 500, with pulltab cap Comparisons
Emissions corresponding to the packaging of 1 litre chilled juice/nectar:
–Carton board (Tetra Top) = about 62 g CO2e
–HDPE = about 176 g CO2e This corresponds to: –The global warming impact of driving a new EU car (158 g/km, 2007) about 0,7 km
Total consumption of chilled milk, juice and nectar in Denmark (almost 500 million litres) corresponds to: –Only carton board (Tetra Brik Edge & Tetra Top) =
about 24,000 ton CO2e/year
–Only HDPE = about 85,000 ton CO2e/year Recommendations for Tetra Pak
Continue to minimise the material use, with a special focus on plastics Continue using renewable materials Minimise the environmental impact of distribution of filled packaging (distance, fuel, cargo capacity utilisation) Continue to lower energy use by ambient packaging and evaluate the environmental performance in cooperation with customers Expand the use of electricity with low environmental impact ("green" electricity) Continue to measure the rate of recycling and support energy efficiency measures in recycling processes Recommendations for producers, retail and consumers
Minimise the environmental impact of packaging by: –minimisethe amountof material per provided function (e.g. by combining materials) –userenewablematerials –ask for environmentalinformation/declaration of the packaging/materials from supplier Give information to customers and consumers about the environmental impact of the packaging and products If an environmental labelling system is to be used, rely a third party system rather than creating your own