An extended life cycle analysis of packaging systems for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe
- PDF / 644,792 Bytes
- 19 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 87 Downloads / 214 Views
PACKAGING SYSTEMS INCLUDING RECYCLING
An extended life cycle analysis of packaging systems for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe Stefan Albrecht & Peter Brandstetter & Tabea Beck & Pere Fullana-i-Palmer & Kaisa Grönman & Martin Baitz & Sabine Deimling & Julie Sandilands & Matthias Fischer
Received: 27 July 2012 / Accepted: 25 April 2013 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract Purpose The year-round supply of fresh fruit and vegetables in Europe requires a complex logistics system. In this study, the most common European fruit and vegetable transport packaging systems, namely single-use wooden and cardboard boxes and re-useable plastic crates, are analyzed and compared considering environmental, economic, and social impacts. Methods The environmental, economic, and social potentials of the three transport packaging systems are examined and compared from a life cycle perspective using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Life Cycle Working Environment (LCWE) methodologies. Relevant parameters influencing the results are analyzed in Responsible editor: Hans-Jürgen Garvens S. Albrecht (*) : P. Brandstetter : T. Beck Department of Life Cycle Engineering (GaBi), University of Stuttgart, LBP, Wankelstr. 5, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany e-mail: [email protected] P. Fullana-i-Palmer UNESCO Chair in Life Cycle and Climate Change, Escola Superior de Comerc Internacional (UPF), Passeig Pujades 1, 08003 Barcelona, Spain K. Grönman Lappeenranta University of Technology, LUT Energy, P.O. Box 20, 53851 Lappeenranta, Finland M. Baitz : S. Deimling : J. Sandilands PE International AG, Hauptstr. 113, 70771 Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany M. Fischer Department of Life Cycle Engineering (GaBi), Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics, Wankelstr. 5, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany
different scenarios, and their impacts are quantified. The underlying environmental analysis is an ISO 14040 and 14044 comparative Life Cycle Assessment that was critically reviewed by an independent expert panel. Results and discussion The results show that wooden boxes and plastic crates perform very similarly in the Global Warming Potential, Acidification Potential, and Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential categories; while plastic crates have a lower impact in the Eutrophication Potential and Abiotic Resource Depletion Potential categories. Cardboard boxes show the highest impacts in all assessed categories. The analysis of the life cycle costs show that the re-usable system is the most cost effective over its entire life cycle. For the production of a single crate, the plastic crates require the most human labor. The share of female employment for the cardboard boxes is the lowest. All three systems require a relatively large share of low-qualified employees. The plastic crate system shows a much lower lethal accident rate. The higher rate for the wooden and cardboard boxes arises mainly from wood logging. In addition, the sustainability consequences due to the influence of packaging in preventing food
Data Loading...
