er an an Systems for for

JAY SINGH'" and A.RJC Cal CA

ABSTRACT: The goal of this study was to conduct a life Cycle In­ill­ ventory (Lei) analysis based comparison of elevenprimary container and pillow wrap combinations for the distribution ofoffresh fresh strawberries Three of the primary containers studied were paper based (molded pulp, paperboard and corrugated fiberboard) and three other contain­ ers investigated were clamshells or punnets made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and recycled PET (rPET) Pillow wraps made of rPET and polylactlde (PLA) were also Included for all punneUtray style containerscontaillers The scope of the study ranged from the exUaction of raw materials, their processlllg and formation for all packaging com­ ponents, product filling and distribution followed by their end-of-life scenarios The scope includes energy Inputs/creditsand greenhouses

gases In CO2 equivalents followed by the end-of-life disposal The functional unit selected was 0.45 kg of packaged strawberries deliv­ ered to Institutional customers (on-site users) and retailers within 402 kilometers from the processing and packing plant with a minimum of one week of shelf life at delivery When compared to the traditional PET clamshell style containers, the ten alternative packaging sys­ tems provide better energy usage/credit and GHG results Molded pulp trays outperformed all alternates studied in this regard, while the paperboard and corrugated fiberboard systems provide very practical and environmentally feasible alternatives. Scenario I for the end-of­ life, which reflects a close of the MSW treatment rates III the US, the paperboard and corrugated fiberboard had a 3---4% and 12-17% Improved towards tile energy usage/credit andGHG emissions respectively

1.0 INTRODUCTION

RESH strawberries rank amongst the most fresh fru its FUn l\ike most other fru Its, stravlberriesstrav/berries are harvested and packed 111 a fully npened state in the field. Due to theIr Jlty to

• Amhor to whom conespondcnce should be

JoumalJaumal ofApplied Packaging Research, Vol 4, No 4-0ctober 2010 203

1557-7244/10104203-19 © 2010 DEStech Publications, Inc at and comparing the manufacturing, and dIstnbution related envIronmental ilnpacts ofeleven container and pillow wrap combinations for the distribution of strawberries. Three of the primary containers studied were paper paperboard and corrugated fiberboard) and three oth­ were clamshells or punnets made of polyeth­ (PET) and recycled PET (rPET). The pi]]ow wraps were made of fPET and Polylactide (PLA). A life cycle inven­ CL,Cl) analysis was conducted for comparing the environmental containers. 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]. 2,000 2 OJ OJ C '500·. . ~ '. K

o

Figure 2. Summary of LCI Results for RPC and ORC Scenarios (for 1000 tons of straw­ berries shipped) (4]. product system over its Iife cycle, from raw materIa I extractton through material processing, product fabrication, use, reuse or recyc Iing, and ultimate disposal [3]. Very fe\v past studies have researched the environmental issues re­ lated to packaging for strawberries. An LCI analysis study compared reusable plastic containers (RPC) to single-use display ready paper cor­ rugated trays (ORC) for packing and shipping often categories of fresh fruits and vegetables. Based on the scope of the study, it was reported that overall the RPCs required 39% less energy, produced 950/0 less total solid waste and generated 29% lesser house JIG) [4 J. 2 shows the energy, so Iid \vaste CCI I resu Its dIstribution ofstravlberrles for the \\\10 The values reported for ORCs were based on the folded boxes and those for RPCs \vere based on loss 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 Its for RPCs were also repol1ed assummg 20% reduction hacklmulhacklmuJ distance of empty contaIners Several other studIes have focused on the envIronmental or cultivation and transporUltion of strawbelTles It is estmlaled on a broad 50% of food GHGs itted during the agriculture vllth the remaIning GIIGs aSSOCiated With 206

at the carbon t"Ar't-...... '·'nt" strawberries grO\\ll In as an PET as the UnIt, most common GHGs emitted from

(C02), nitrous oxide (N20)

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

and consumer shopping (65 g CO2 eq.) and .n''A,nnn (60 CO2 \vhile agrochemicals (40 g CO2 a minor role [6].

A research conducted a comparative study ofthe CO2 emis­emis- siems associated WIth fresh vegetables and fruits produced locally in Austria versus Among the five products Included In thIS strawberries imported from Spain and those grown domestically in Lower Austria were evaluated. The scope of this project was based on 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 CO 2 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 veg­ etables from local farmers (within 200 km radius) rather than distant sources. Long stem strawberries did not have any impact due to un­ available local clin1ate for their cultivation and these numbers were re­

as 169 tons ofoil equivalent and 425 tons ofCO2 equivalents for the and 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 compar­compar- ison of eleven primary container and pillow wrap combinations for the distribution of strawberries. Three of the primary containers stud­ ied were paper based (molded pulp, paperboard and con"ugated fiber­fiber- board) other containers investigated were clamshelIs or pUll­pUll- nets made of and 3). PiJlow wraps made of rPET and PLA were included for all punnet/tray style containers. The scope study ranged the extraction of raw materials, their process­process- Life

Corrugated Punnet Paperboard Punnet Fiber

PET/rPET Clamshell rPET Punnet Figure 3. Primary Packages Studied. ing and formatIOn for all packaglllg components, product fJlllng and distribution follmved by their end-of-life scenarios. The scope includes energy inputs and cred its and greenhouses gases ll1 CO 2 eq uiva lents followed by the end-of-life disposal. The functional unit selected was 0.45 kg of packaged stra\vberries del ivered to institutional custonlers (on-site users) and retailers with in 402 ki lometers from the process1l1g and packing plant with a minimum of one week of shelf life at delivery. Figure 4 shows two of these containers with the stravlbernes. WhJle the PET/rPET clamshells do not require any more packagmg, the ['PE'T and paper based punnets were assumed wrapped ll1 rPET or PLA fIlm "pillow". The paperboard and corrugated flberboard punnets prOVIde a "b1l1board", for promotIng the \vIthllL II ThIS Illvesugated dIsplay contaIners (DR the transponation unit (Figure 5)

Corrugated Punnet \vith Film "Pillow" "Pillow" Figure 4. Packed Punnet and ClamS/Jell Style Container Exarnples. Exarnples. 208 j and

Figure 5. DIsplay Ready Corrugated Shipper

2.2 Metbods

It'<.' ,'YH'>,,,,r\i'·V,'YH'>,,,Ir\i'·v of study was adopted from ISO 14040 guide­ide- 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® system lneasures energy usage and recovery and GHG emissions (C02 equiva­equiva- each of the supply chain, including resin and other raw 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 was selected for this study. This data set is based on production processes in the United States and includes biomass energy credits. The CAPE PACK design software consists of pallet pattern optimization tools. Its features inc] ude the abiLity to build paLlel patteJ:1:LC\,. £.rea1.e JJ£W ['...a.~ siz­siz- es, new product packages and consolidate case sizes. The raw material data required for the inventory analysis for the fol­ lowing was obtained from the SavvyPack® sofhvare:sof'hvare: PET/rPET (clam­ shells/punnet); paper fiber pulp, paperboard and corrugated fiberboard (punnets),(punnels), corrugated fiberboard (ORCs); rPET and PLA film (Pillows); band (PET) and wood (pallets). This software sources the data and keeps it updated to within three months from the Canadian Raw Materials Database, European Aluminum Association, European Com­ mission, Finnish Environment Institute, International Iron and Steel In- National Renewable Energy Lab, Environmental Defense Fund Paper Calculator, Plastics Europe, and Sustainable Product Information Network for the Environment. A scorecard methodology to provide a comparison between the three all us­us- mg scorecards to packaged of A scorecard may the strategIc targets and any narrattve \Val-t'v1art's ~J{"_"\.{CI""''' troducedtraduced in the US til 2006 as a measurement tool that [ov\'s suppliers to evaluate themselves relatIve to other supplltTs,supplIers, based on motnes . In the paekagmgpackagmg 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 ofddYerent merncs of sLlstamability that Include GHG emissions produced per Ion of agmg, 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 scorecard where the inbuilt matrices are populated durmg data' the L,el analysis. The scorecard results for the eleven packaglllg systems stud­ ied were created vlith the followlI1g rnatrices and the weighted average for each based closely to that utilized by Wal-Mart:

15% based all011 Purchased Material GHG 15% based all011 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'vvho have to meet mandates retaIlers and can allow them to dI rft.:rc:nl packaging options any

2.3 Allocation

Accordmg to ISO 14040, allocatlon !s deflncddeflIled the lll­lll- put or flows of lim!UI1l1 process to the under Outing the of LeA,LCA, allocation may be necessary when and A

/,PITt! T 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 pack­ age manufactunng, product fillmg, unitizing and distnbution compo­ ncnts as related to the six primary containers (and pillow wraps where applicable) as well as the distribution packaging involved. Strawberry production, harvesting and packing was excluded in this study. Alloca­ tion was not used in this study since there was no more than one input or output in each unit process.

2.4 System Boundaries

'rhe system boundaries are illustrated in Figure 6. Strawberry pro­ duction, harvesting and packing were not included in this study. It was assumed that any loss of product was the same for all eleven packaging systems studied. GHG in CO2 equivalents and energies were analyzed based on materials (used to manufacture the packaging components, packaging ofthe product and the secondary packaging), processes (pro­ duction fficility and manufacturing processes for packaging compo­ nents 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). a 2.4. PackafYin15 15

The primary designs studied are shov;n m J and contain three paper based pulp, paperboard and cd fiberboard) and three clamshells or punnet and \Vhl Ie the three plastiC and the molded are presently used Widely In the US., the paperboard and fiberboard punnets arc not The latter forms of soft frUlt contall)CrS nrc popular In Europe and In contrast to the other containers, provide l:l larger billboard for graphics The different overall of the prt­ mary 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, PET band straps and reusable wooden pallets. Table I provides details of the palletlzmg configuratIOns for all eleven packagl11g systems studied. The palletlzing configurat10ns were based on the eXlst1ng or recommended methodologies.

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 and rPET (clamshells, punnet, pillow wrap and band straps), paper based substrates (molded pulp, and PLA (pIllow and wood (pal vvas obtamed from the software DetaIls of the databases sourced by thiS sofhvare nrc pruvlded m section 2.2 The followmg post consurner content values adopted for the raw lllaterJals Llsed m all >n~'."<.,,,,, fiberboard, paperboard and fiber (punnets and PET (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-IV(j­

,.",._-,­ ,.",._-,- .... " ... ~ ...... 032 ~ .. 381 N/A NIA N/A :)81 776 N/A 840 840 PLA Of~ C Of~C Df~C 8382 8690 8690 8382 .." • 000:'1 0 0 17072 17072 PtHHH~t J PtHHH~tJ PUnnfit! 22 22 NiA 381 NJA 381 NJA 776 395 395 840 840 ORC ORC 8382 8690 8690 8690 8382 (-PET 0003 0.003 0.032 17072 17072 PunniltJ Punnetf --~"~------~_.""-"'",",'''''''' ' ,-_._._------_ LA IP 22 22 381 381 N/A N/A 381 NIA N/A 840 840 804 423 423 804 840 423 ORC ORC ORC ORC 8382 Pulp 8382 Pulp 9306 9306 9306 0040 0003 0003 0040 17688 17688 Tray TraylPLA 22 22 NJA NJA N/A N/A NJA NJA 381 38'\ 840 804 423 840 423 804 ORC ORC ORC Pulp 9306 9306 8382 9306 8382 0.040 0.040 0003 0.040 0003 17688 17688 Tray/rPET 2222 22 22 NJA NJA NJA NJA NJA 381 381 381 381 840 762 381 840 762 PLA ORC ORC 8382 8382 8382 8382 0.040 0.040 0.003 0.003 16764 16764 Punnetf 22 22 NJA NJA NJA NJA 381 381 381 381 762 840 762 840 ORC ORC 83828382 8382 8382 8382 8382 rPET 0.040 0.040 0.003 0.040 0.003 0.45 0.45 0.45 16764 16764 PunnetJ the the the for for for 22 22 NJA N/A NJA N/A 381 381 294 675 840 294 675 840 PLA PLA ORC ORC ORC ORC ORC 6468 8382 6468 8382 rPET rPET 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.003 0.003 0.003 14850 14850 PunnetJ PunnetJ 22 22 22 22 NJA NJA NJA NJA NJA NJA N/A 294 294 381 381 840 840 294 381 840 675 675 ORC ORC ORC 6468 8382 8382 6468 8382 rPET rPET 0.025 0.003 0.003 0025 RPET RPET 14850 14850 16764 16764 14850 PunnetJ PunnetJ Differences Differences Differences

~2 ~2 ~2 N/A "'JA 193 "'fA "'fA "IJA 193 "I/A 381 574 840 381 574 840 8~82 ORC ORC 8~82 4~4 6 4~46 4246 rPET rflET 0027 0.027 12628 12628 12628 Clarnshell Clamshell 22 22 NJA 193 NJA NfA NJA NJA N/A 381 574 840 193 381 574 840 PET PET ORC ORC 8382 4246 8382 4246 0.027 0.027 12628 12628 Clamshell Clamshell Packaging Packaging 1. 1. 1. (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) load load (kg) (kg) Table Table Table (kg) (kg) material material pallet truck truck pallet truck truck pallet pallet truck truck (kg) (kg) per per per per per per truck truck based based (kg) (kg) (kg) per per per per pallet pallet (kg) (kg) palletized palletized per per of of per per packaging packaging pallets weight weight pallets weight weight rPET paper PET paper PET wrapper rPET wrapper of of weight weight weight weight of of of of of of of of weight weight weigh! weight Secondary Packaging Product Number Product Weight Weigh1 Weight Weight Product Containers Weight Weight Weight Packaging Secondary Total Total Number Packaging Product Packaging Weight Total Containers Total Total lems to produce all as assoc the dIsposa I v','ere a\"aa\"3 IlabIe database IC sheets/films \\'(~IT the extrusIOn process and the clamshells fOrIT!ed

3.3 Consumption

The flllll1g of pnmary contamers with harvested strH\vbcr~ nes was assumed Identical for al eleven packaging systems and was excluded from thiS UnitizatIOn and storage pnor 10 and during dlstnbutlon of fliled containers to msututlonal customers (on-sHe(on-SHe users) and retatlers wlthlll 402 ktlOlTleters from the processing and plant were assumed to result 1Il similar impacts Automated cartoners, case packers, plliow form-fill-seal packers for all punnclspUl1nels and let~ izers were included 111 this study The details of the IJ«\,,]\,";:;:'1 ratIons for all packaging systems are provIdedprOVIded in Table dImenSIonsdImenSIOns were assumed to be 102 cm x 122 cm x 15 em and the truck dllllensionsdImensions were 2.4 m x 16.2 m x 2.8 III \vlth a \Nelght capacity of 19800 kg. Wooden pallets \vere assumed to have a llseful life of 30 trips

3.4 Distances and Transportation

Distance from all resin (PET, rPET and PLA) suppliers to the manu­ facturing centers averaged at 4828 km and included truck and train as the modes of transport. The labels were assumed 10 be shipped from 520 km to the pnmary A finIshed lng com ponen ts Inc Iudmg based \voockn pa Ilets alld PE'T band straps were assurned to be sh faTITls from all aver" age of 402 km. The overall crad and CjllCJ rallos that converted energy use and G l-~G enllSSlons to cracHe equ for the truck and nulcarrallcar were available th the Lei soft-ware.

3.5 End-of-Life

The 1'01foJ end-of-lIfe scenariOS in terms of II,, H1ClI1eratlonH1ClI1eraLIOn and Ing for all ng COITlponerlls used III the studIed \vere conSidered. Both scenanos assumed lhatlha! no 214 A

and retail customers and that treatment process.

Incmeration13 00/0

incmeratJOnJ50% landfill

sol id waste treatment rates in in

h,Qp,nJI-'(l across I materials llsed in the eleven sys­ sys­

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

U''-''''-'j,,-'VWj developments and regulatory changes a renewed interest in MSW as an energy source with the to provide renewable energy while reducing GI-IG emissions for space [12J MSW-to-energy technologies being include landfill gas capture (biogas made of approxi­ 50~) 0 CO2 and 50 /0 methane) [13J, combustion (burning waste at approximately 980°C) 14J, pyrolysis (MSW heated in absence of oxygen at approxlmately 290-700°C) [1 5J, gasIfication (MSW heated

with smal J amount of oxygen at 390-1 650°C) [16J and plasma arc gas­ (superheated plasma technology used to gasify MSW at ap­ 5540°C) [17]. Landfill gas capture has achleved the widest

U'-""'-'I,)'UA'j,-,,-, arnongst these technologies with bio-energy programs in at 485 lis in U.S. III December 2008 [18]. Waste combus­combus- tion has not grown in acceptance since 1996 and presently there are 88 waste-to-energy plants in operation III 25 states [19]. Gasification and plasma arc technologies are sti II facing challenges towards commercial ,:,rUU1 lJ' 1.-1 ::fv' CV1r::f1 u{n 1 i 116' Ll11...-- 1in.;1 'CaSliJ16' 1i n:ptn.71.' 01 f'1 l:ruulfill d1 ru1 IiI~ lil~ oration technologies, Scenario IIII was used in this study.

4.0 RESULTS

The main purpose of this study was to provide a relatively simple methodology to serve as a decision making tool when more than one packaging solution could be available to a user. For this reason, we pro­ vide environmental emissions of the packaging systems studied (LCI) and not the burdens (LCA). A full LCA needs to be undertaken to un­ derstand the impacts of the environmental burdens. Also due to recent 11landates from retailers that use scorecards to judge packaged products in terms of di metrics of sust2inability, this study incorporated it as a technique comparing the eleven packaging systems studied. Table 2. Greenhouse Gases and

Energy (MJIFU)

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

PET Clamshell/(NJA) 10277 96.62 695 RPET C!amshellJ(N/A) 99.09 91 7 6.35 6.90 RPET PunnetiRPET 91.06 84.99 5.86 RPET PunnetfPLA 89.99 83.92 5.84 Paperboard Punnetf RPET 98.66 9745 5.92 6.01 Paperboard Punnet I PLA 99.04 9783 6 1 Molded Paper Tray/RPET 9779 96.58 4 18 4.27 Molded Paper Tray/PLA 96.71 95.51 4 16 4.25 Corrugated PunnetiRPET 99.76 98.55 6.19 6.27 PunnetiPLAPunnetlPLA 99.04 9783 614 6.22

4.1 Discussion

Based on the data collected, GHG output (kg CO2 and energy LIse/credituse/credit (MJ) per functIonal UIlIt, and the scorecard results from tho analySIS were tabulated Table 2 and Figures 6 and 7 sho\"/ the G I-IG output and energy uses for the two end-of-I ife scenarios considered Table 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 stnnv­ berry packaging systems. Figure 7 shows the percentage difference 111

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

~ -2% iP c w .~ (l) ~ !:' ~ o V V Ql Ql $ $ ~ -10'% -10'% ~ Q.. 12% o -14%+-'--­-14%+-'--- o

Figure 7 Percentage Difference in Energy Usage Compared 10 PFT Clamslwfl

2S <'I"'" ~ 2S A ~ <: » ;;:l <: 0 (I) (j) OJ (), en :A 0 (j) . ~ .~ tv SO SO 250 250 7.50 PLA 7.50 653 (345 6 653 PLA 6.61 4.39 6.61 10.85 53.37 53.37 6050 6050 PunlHHI PunlHHI Corrugattl'o Corrugattl'o Gom.lgntud 39 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 645 7.50 7.50 (355 7.50 645 655 4 661 6.05 6.05 661 6.05 rPET rPET rPET 1085 1085 53,39 53,39 53,39 PunnQtl Comlgated Comlgateo Comlgateo 250 2.50 9.03 846 2.50 2.50 9.03 9.03 846 7.50 2.50 7.50 Pulp Pulp Pulp 1000 12.80 12.80 14.33 14.33 1000 14.33 12.80 79.23 79.23 79.23 Molded Molded Molded Tray/PLA Tray/PLA TroyfPLA 9.03 9.03 848 750 9.03 750 2.50 848 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Pulp Pulp Pulp 12.11 12.11 1'2.80 12.80 14.33 liO.OO 14.33 1,0.00 79.25 79.25 79.25 Molded Molded Molded Tray/rPET Tray/rPET Tray/rPET 11 9.03 2.50 2.50 9.03 2.502.50 2.50 2.50 846 846 7.50 7.50 7.50 PLA PLA PLA 12 1211 10.00 10.00 14.33 10.00 12.8012.80 12.80 14.33 14.33 79.23 79.23 12.80 79.23 Punnetl Punnetl PunnetJ Results. Results. Paperboard Paperboard Paperboard 908 2.50 2.50 848 2.50 2.50 848 908 2.50 2.50 7.50 7.50 rPET rPET rPET 12.11 12.11 12.11 14.33 14.33 12.80 14.33 10.00 10.00 12.80 79.25 10.00 79.25 PunnetJ Punnetl Scorecard Scorecard Paperboard Paperboard Paperboard Paperboard 2.50 2.50 2.50 750 2.50 2.50 7.50 PLA 9.08 797 9.08 797 PLA rPET rPET 10.00 10.00 rPET 12.80 10.00 12.38 12.38 13.62 12.80 13.62 78.35 78.35 79.25 78.35 PunnetJ PunnetJ Packaging Packaging 3. 3. 3. 2.50 2.50 9.08 9.08 7.50 2.50 2.50 9.08 7.50 2.50 7.98 7.98 7.98 rPET rPET rPET rPET rPET rPET 12.80 10.00 12.80 12.80 12.80 10.00 13.62 12.38 1000 13.62 12.38 12.38 78.36 78.36 78.36 PunnetJ PunnetJ PunnetJ PunnetJ Table Table 7.50 2.50 7.50 6.45 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 6.61 6.45 6.45 6.05 2.50 6.55 6.61 6.05 4.39 6.55 6.55 4.39 rPET rPET rPET 10.85 10.85 53.40 53.40 53.40 Clamshell Clamshell Clamshell 10 10 10 7 7 7.50 7 6.05 2.50 2.50 2.50 6.22 6.22 7.50 2.50 2.50 PET PET 622 439 6.61 6.05 PET 439 6.61 10.36 10.36 53.23 53.23 Clamshell Clamshell Clamshell 5 5 5 5 15 10 15 15 15 10 15 15 15 10 15 10 10 10 100 100 Max Max Max Score Score Score Ratio R.atio GHG GHG Distance Distance Distance Material Material Material Product Product Product Energy Energy Energy Material Material Material Content Content Content to to to Innovation Innovation Innovation Utilization Utilization Utilization Package R.ecycled Recovery Recovery Recovery Recycled Purchased Criterion Criterion Package Purchased Purchased Renewable Energy Package Renewable Energy Sustainable Cube Criterion Renewable Energy Sustainable Sustainable Cube Cube Transportation Transportation Transportation Total Total Total temate lJe"_I"-u:;;;::, RPET or lowest energy approx 14% J'YO Iy 1ll comparison to PET clamshells. The paper based alternatives over­over- a 11 had a decreased energy usage In the range of 3-~6%) companson Scenano J reflects an approxImate ot the munici solid waste treatment rates in the U.S 18.1 In Sccnano 1 , 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 were approximately at par.

4.1.2 Creenhouse Cas (COle) Results

Figure 8 shows the percentage differerlce 111 G H HGG em iss Ions (COle) for all systenls studied in comparison to the PET clamshells 11 was observed that all alternate systems contrIbuted SIgnificantly lower GHG em 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 \vrapped in 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 30L 501/50L 0%

:) l±:. -10% Q) 0''' I o -20% +! _ OJ x <.:5 I -30% (.:J .£: Q) () -40% c Q) Q:, :::: i5 -50% CD OJ ~ -60% a5 u (j) (j) a... -70% -70%

-80% -'------....------.------.----....---..... Figure 8. Percentage Difference in Greenhouse Gases (COjB) Compared to Clam­Clam- shell A

Figure 9. Over8/1 Scorecard Results (100 Maximum). debit rangmg between 13-170/0. The molded pulp trays had a dramatic reduction in GHG emissions ofapproximately 670/0 by comparison. For Scenario II, while the rPET punnets wrapped in either PLA or rPET pillow had a reduced GHG emission of approximately 170/0, the paper­ board and fi berboard punnets had a debi t ranging between I "r'he molded pulp trays had a dramatic reduction in GHG emissions of approximately 730/0 by comparison.

4.1.3 Scorecard Results

'rable 3 and 9 show the results in the SavvyPack® scorecard format 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 pulp on the other hand, scored 47-49% higher by comparison.

5.0

The main purpose this study was to provide a relatively uncompli­uncompli- to serve as a decision making tool when more than one solution is available to a user. It conducted a LeI analy­analy-

and A KRASO\NSKI

the support and and Science at

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

e ~Al"n,nHHl 'fr<.>t.v",.pn " CGfl1ml5SIon Best Handlmg Practices for Strawbernes. www.calstraw­ November 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 and framework ISO 14040:2006. 14040:2006. SingJl SP, Chonhenchob V, Smgh J Lite 1I1ventory and analysis of re-usable plastIc con­ con­con- lamers and display-ready wrrugated used for packagmg fresh frUits and vegetables. vegetables. fJack.a;;{inf!, Techn%gy and Science, 2006. 19' 279-293 279-293 Elbourne, P Reducmg food-related greenhouse gas emissions through local production of fruit and vegetables. /\ report for Alness Town Transition Group, UK, July 2009 Available at http://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. 6. Blanke, M Life cycle and carbon footprint of Imported Huelva Strawbernes LIfe Cycle Assessment IX Proceedings, Boston, Massachusetts, September 29-Dcto­29-Dcto- ber 2,2009 7 7 Annual Report, 2007 Calculation of the COL rucksacks of Imported versus regionally pro­ dued goods. Sustamabl e Europe Research Institute (SERI), Garnisongasse 7/27, 1090 Vienna, Austria. 8. 8. Aranda, A., S., Zabalza, I and Valero Capilla, A. An analysis of the present food's transport model on a case study camed out m Spam. Proceedings oj/he 6/h 1m. Can! on I ('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 Sup­ pi 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 II UUS S Environmental Protection Agency (2009) MuniCipal Solid Waste Generation, RecycllIlg, and Disposal m the United States Facts and Figures 2008 12. 12. Environmental and Energy Study Institute Reconsldenng MuniCipal Solid Waste as a Renew­ able Energy Feedstock Issue 13rief July 2009 IJ J Environmental Protection r'\gency LFG Energy Project Development Handbook, Chapter I Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/res/pdJ/pdh_chapterl.pdf, 2009 Accessed May 18. 20 II00 14 14 HazardOUS Waste Resource Center Hazardous Waste Inemeration. Advanced Technology to Protect the Environment. Environmental Technology Center, hnp://www.etc.org/technologica­ landcnvironmentallsslles/treatmenncchnologles/incineration/. 2000. Accessed May 18, 20 II00 15 15 Kai Sipilti, Municipal and CommerCial Solid Waste for Pyrolysis (Oils) and Gasification Mar­ kets. \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.earthtoys com/crnagszHlc.php?issuc _numbcf""09.06.0 I&article=zarar, 2009 Accessed May 18,20 IO. Ute

j 7 Plasma CorporEnon \I'-hat is Plasl1n (\: GasltlC1ltllHl" PlaSm!1 Corporation, ht1p: \\'w,," Si)lullunsw!lnt IS plasmn gaslficHlonphp, 2007 Accessed \8�\8 Psomopoulos, CCS S ,A Bourka, and Thcmclls \\'aste ttl I n<:r'2,\ -\ ~\n In\ of tht' Sta­Sta- tus and Benefits In tl1C' United Stall'S, \VaslC IVianagemcnt. http: '\\\\'\\',llm\\'t!n,ol"gIlt'WS documcntsrrab3-PsomopoulosctaI2009WTEstatusandbcndits2.I'dI'. 200\l Ac\'csscd 1\1ay 18. 2010 19�19 Ramsey/Washll1gton Coullty Resource Recovery Pl'()JCC( Updnkd Research Study' (insl tkn­tkn- {(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