LCA Food 2012 in Saint Malo, France! - Manifestations et colloques ...

PARALLEL SESSION 3B: PACKAGING 8 th Int. Conference on LCA in the
Agri-Food Sector, 1-4 Oct 2012
tion potential - AP (kg SO2 equiv.), euthrophication potential – EP (kg PO3 4- equiv.), human toxicity potential
- HTP(kg DCB equiv.) and photochemical ozone creation potential - POCP(kg ethylene equiv.).
A sensitivity analysis was undertaken for the current recycling rate of 27% in order to measure the influence
of the roof tile and paraffin co-production credits.
3. Results
3.1 Energy consumption
The analysis of Table 1 shows that the total energy for the system was reduced by 20% between 2000 and
2011 and that the reduction is mainly due to lower consumption of renewable energy. The present recycling
rate of 27% saves 15% of energy compared to no recycling. If the recycling rate increases to a maximum
estimate of 70%, the saving of energy can be raised up to 39%.
Table 1. Energy consumption profile of evaluated systems. Functional unit: 1,000 litres of milk packaging.
Year/Recycling Energy (MJ/1,000 litres of packaging milk) % Non Renewable Reduçtion (%) relative to:
rate
Renewable Non Renewable Total energy
2000 2011
0% recycling 0% recycling
2000 0% 1444 728 2172 33.5 - -
2011 0% 960 783 1743 44.9 20 -
2011 27% 755 728 1483 49.1 - 15
2011 35% 694 712 1406 50.6 - 19
2011 50% 581 681 1262 54.0 - 28
2011 70% 429 640 1069 59.9 - 39
3.2 Environmental impacts
The analysis of Table 2 shows that the system in 2011 had benefits for all the environmental impact categories
analysed compared with the same production in 2000. Despite the fact that most transport distances in
the country are long and there is a consumption of natural resources as well as air/water emissions in the
reverse logistic chain, the increase of recycling brings environmental advantages.
Table 2. Main environmental impact indicators for aseptic packaging systems and different recycling rates.
Functional unit: 1,000 litres of milk packaging.
Reference year / recycling rate
Environmental impact indicator (*)
2000
2011
0% 0% 27% 35% 50% 70%
Abiotic resource depletion – ADP (kg Sb equiv.) 0.45 0.38 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.30
Global warming potential – GWP (kg CO2 equiv.) 189 178 138 125 103 72
Acidification potential – AP (kg SO2 equiv.) 1.98 0.46 0.40 0.38 0.34 0.30
Euthrophication potential – EP (kg phosphate equiv.) 0.17 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04
Human toxicity – HTP (kg de DCB equiv.)
Photochemical ozone creation potential – POCP (kg ethylene
1.56 0.55 0.49 0.47 0.44 0.39
equiv.)
*=according to CML 2001 (updated in Dec. 2007)
0.25 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06
The results of the sensitivity analysis undertaken for the current recycling rate of 27% are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Sensitivity analysis related to the roof-tile and paraffin co-production credits in an aseptic packaging
system evaluated in 2011. Functional unit: 1,000 litres of milk packaging.
System evaluated
ADP
Environmental impact indicators (*)
GWP AP EP HTP POCP
System with no recycling 0.45 189 1.98 0.17 1.56 0.25
Current approach with 27% of recycling rate 0.35 138 0.40 0.05 0.49 0.08
Without roof-tile co-production credits (27% RR) 0.36 141 0.42 0.05 0.51 0.08
Without paraffin co-production credits (27% RR) 0.35 138 0.40 0.05 0.49 0.08
Without roof-tile and paraffin co-production credits (27%
0.36 (3%)
RR)
141(2%) 0.42 (5%) 0.05 0.51(4%) 0.08
RR=recycling rate *= according to CML 2001 (updated in Dec. 2007)
278