Source (in Word): Life Cycle Assessment of Different Scenarios for Waste Treatment of a Plastic Bottle Used for Food Packaging
Converted in *.htm by J.F. Nezval
Edited in hypertext on: 05.11.2004

Contact:
Ing. J.F. Nezval 
PETrecycling.cz

Summary of the report:

Life Cycle Assessment of Different Scenarios for Waste Treatment of a Plastic Bottle Used for Food Packaging.   

Lars von Krogh, Hanne Lerche Raadal, Ole Jørgen Hanssen

OR 39.01

Østfold Research Foundation

REPORT OVERVIEW

Contents

1      Background

2      Methodology

3      Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

4      Conclusions

Summary of the report:

Life Cycle Assessment of Different Scenarios for Waste Treatment of a Plastic Bottle Used for Food Packaging.

1         Background

This project has been carried out for Stabburet AS and Plastretur AS. Three different waste treatment methods for a plastic bottle have been analysed. The plastic bottle was chosen as an example of plastic packaging from households.

The principle aim of the project has been to compare the environmental effects that arise from the three different treatment methods: landfill, energy recovery and recycling. 

2         Methodology

The study has been based upon the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, as described in the ISO-standards 14040-43. The LCA methodology has been used for the assessment of environmental impacts of different waste management solutions.

The functional unit (the basis for the analysis) has been the collection and treatment of one tonne of plastic bottles used for packaging of a food product including the food product remains.

Description of the three systems:
 

Figure 1 shows simple flow charts for the three treatment systems for the plastic packaging bottle.

 

Figure 1: Flow charts for the three treatment systems for the plastic packaging bottle.

3         Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

The environmental impact categories are presented for the following life cycle steps:

Figures 2 and 3 show the environmental profile for two impact categories for the life cycle of the plastic bottle for the three different treatment methods. Global Warming Potential and Acidification are presented in kg CO₂-equivalents and g SO₂- equivalents per tonne plastic bottles collected from households, respectively.

Figure 2: Global Warming Potential

Figure 3: Acidification

The recycling system gives the most beneficial results for both the impact categories. The main reason for this is the benefit gained from avoided virgin material that occurs when the collected plastic is sent to recycling. These benefits are greater than the benefits from replaced energy.

The landfill system gives the highest environmental burdens, mainly because of the emissions arising from the breaking down of the organic material in the food product remains.

Transport contributes very little to the environmental burdens for the systems when compared to the contributions from the waste treatment method, or the substitution of energy carriers and virgin material.

4         Conclusions

The following conclusions are reached based on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the different treatment systems:

◦         The material recycling system is the most environmentally beneficial when compared to energy recovery and landfill. The main reason for this is the benefit gained from avoided virgin material.

◦         Energy recovery also gives a net environmental benefit for several of the impact categories, but when compared to recycling, the benefit is considerably smaller.

◦         Landfill gives the highest environmental burdens when compared to recycling and energy recovery.

◦         Transport contributes very little to the total environmental loads.

◦         This study has not taken into account that when plastic packaging waste is recycled, it is made available for use in several future life cycles and can therefore replace virgin material more than just once. A recycled material is not at the ‘end-of-life’ phase of the life cycle; it is entering a new life cycle as a raw material. In order to assess the complete picture of the burdens and benefits arising from recycling, the system boundaries must be expanded to allow for recycling many times.

◦         It is important to be aware of the assumptions that these analyses are built on. The results must be used carefully as a basis for making decisions about whether one should recycle a waste material or not. However, the analyses show that there is a potential for great environmental benefit in systems with high recycling rates.

5   References

Askham, C., Modahl, I. S., Analyse av alternativer for restavfallsbehandling i Mjøsregionen (Analyses of different treatment methods for residual waste in the Mjøs region),OR 03.01. Stiftelsen Østfoldforskning, Fredrikstad.

Hanssen O. J., Raadal, H. L., 1999, Gjenvinning av plast i Drammensregionen. Vurdering av miljø- og ressurseffektivitet ved innsamling og gjenvinning av plastemballasjeavfall (Recycling of plastic in the Drammen region. Assessment of the environmental and resource efficiency of the collection and recycling of plastic packaging waste), OR 17.99. Stiftelsen Østfoldforskning, Fredrikstad.

Hanssen O. J., Raadal, H. L., 1999, Gjenvinning av plast i Drammensregionen. Vurdering av deponering, forbrenning og gjenvinning av plastemballasjeavfall (Recycling of plastic in the Drammen region. Assessment of landfill, energy recovery and recycling of plastic packaging waste), OR 45.99. Stiftelsen Østfoldforskning, Fredrikstad.

Hanssen O. J., Vold, M., Borchsenius, C. H., Økstad E., 1999, Miljø- og ressursanalyse av emballasjeløsninger for Stabburet ASA (Assessment of the environmental and resource efficiency of different packaging solutions for Stabburet ASA), OR 29.99. Stiftelsen Østfoldforskning, Fredrikstad.

Raadal, H. L., von Krogh, L., Nyland, C. A., Hanssen, O. J., 2001, Miljø- og samfunnsøkonomisk vurdering av håndtering av plastemballasjeavfall fra husholdninger i Hamar- og Drammensregionen (Life Cycle Assessment and Socio-economic Cost Benefit Analyses of the Treatment of Plastic Packaging Waste from Households in Norway), OR 24.01. Stiftelsen Østfoldforskning, Fredrikstad.

More articles on IP PETrecycling.cz:
Articles in archives: 2007 > 2006 > 2005 > 2004 > 2003 > 2002 > 2001 > 2000