Comparison of environmental impacts of different types of yoghurt cups

Authors

  • Nikola Kráľová VŠCHT Praha Ústav chemie ochrany prostředí Technická 5, 166 28 Praha 6
  • Markéta Šerešová VŠCHT Praha Ústav chemie ochrany prostředí Technická 5, 166 28 Praha 6
  • Vladimír Kočí VŠCHT Praha Ústav chemie ochrany prostředí Technická 5, 166 28 Praha 6

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35933/ENTECHO.2020.02

Keywords:

Life Cycle Assessment, Environmental Assessment, Packaging, Storage, Waste management

Abstract

The aim of the work was to assess the environmental impacts of different types of selected yoghurt cups made of different materials: plastic, paper, glass or composite material. Environmental impacts were assessed using the life cycle assessment (LCA) method.

The results of the work show that glass and composite packaging is worse than plastic packaging except for the impact category Resource use (mineral and metals) and Human toxicity. The best packaging appears to be plastic packaging with K3 decoration (paper), which has the smallest impacts in all evaluated impact categories. In the impact category Climate change, composite packaging and glass packaging have the greatest impact. The most affected category is Freshwater ecotoxicity. The highest impacts within this category are shown by glass packaging and subsequently composite packaging. In the impact category Ionizing radiation, the greatest impact has a glass packaging, then a composite packaging. Based on the results, it was determined that the main cause of the impacts of plastic cups is the production of PP granulate. In the case of glass packaging, it is the production of the glass itself, and in the case of composite packaging, the production of the composite packaging.

References

ČSÚ, 2018. Produkce, využití a odstranění odpadů, 2017. https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/produkce-vyuziti-a-odstraneni-odpadu-2017

Dhaliwal, H.; Browne, M.; Flanagan, W.; Laurin, L.; Hamilton, M., 2014. A life cycle assessment of packaging options for contrast media delivery: comparing polymer bottle vs. glass bottle. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(12), 1965–1973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0795-1

Dyer, T. D., 2014. Chapter 14 – Glass Recycling, In: Worrell, E.; Reuter, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook of Recycling. Elsevier, Boston. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-396459-5.00014-3

Markwardt, S.; Wellenreuther, F.; Drescher, A.; Harth, J.; Busch, M., 2017. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Tetra Pak® carton packages and alternative packaging systems for liquid food on the Nordic market (Final Report). Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung, Heidelberg.

Smejtková, A., 2018. Balení v potravinářském průmyslu. Česká zemědělská univerzita v Praze, Praha.

Stichling, J.; Singh, R., 2012. LCA of Container Glass and comparison with PET, Beverage Carton, Pouch and Al Can.

Xie, M.; Qiao, Q.; Sun, Q.; Zhang, L., 2013. Life cycle assessment of composite packaging waste management—a Chinese case study on aseptic packaging. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(3), 626–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0516-6

Published

2020-06-30

How to Cite

Kráľová, N., Šerešová, M. and Kočí, V. (2020) “Comparison of environmental impacts of different types of yoghurt cups”, ENTECHO, 3(1), pp. 6–9. doi: 10.35933/ENTECHO.2020.02.

Issue

Section

Peer reviewed articles