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
Table 2. Relative contributions (in%) of the foreground steps to the total for each tray system (shaded cells in
red are contributions that are equal to or greater than 15%) (Note: recycled pulp production and tray moulding
are aggregated together in the results for MP).
Comparing the environmental profiles of the systems studied provides answers as to the potential environmental
gains associated with the use of different materials (virgin or recycled) to manufacture the trays,
without, however, confirming whether one or another posts better performances in all damage/impact categories
CIRAIG (Figure 2). The Figure 2 allowed deriving a system Pi19P2 hierarchy, - Rapport where final the green grouping represents the
systems CIRAIG with the least potential impacts, the red Cascades one Groupe those Produits systems Spécialisés with the most potential impacts and the
grey one represents the intermediate systems.
% of worst system
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Figure 2. Comparative cradle-to-grave damage/impact of the packaging trays. Green boxed grouping: systems
with the least potential Figure impacts, 3-7: System red grouping: hierarchy systems for each damage/impact with the most category potential impacts, grey groupings:
intermediate systems.
CIRAIG.org © 2009
PLA PET PP OPS RPET XPS MP PLA PP PET RPET OPS MP XPS PLA PP PET OPS RPET MP XPS PET PLA PP OPS RPET XPS MP PLA PP PET OPS RPET XPS MP PLA PP PET MP OPS RPET XPS
Human Health Ecosystems Quality Climate Change Resources Aquatic Acidification Aquatic Eutrophication
ACV comparative de produits
d’emballage alimentaire
Damage/Impact Categories
Page 26
301