Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Environmental Impact Assessment of Low-Density Polyethylene and Polyethylene Terephthalate Containers Using a Life Cycle Assessment Technique

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Polymers and the Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the present study, the life cycle of two milk packaging containers (Polyethylene terephthalate PET and low-density polyethylene; LDPE) was assessed with an emphasis on different product-life scenarios in Iran. The functional unit was adjusted to work on one ton of plastic milk packaging containers. The system boundary included all life cycle stages, including resin production, packaging production, collection, transportation, and waste management (mechanical recycling, landfill, incineration). In the production sector, the resin was produced from raw materials and mechanical recycling was defined as producing granules from milk packaging containers. The granules obtained from recycling were used in the production of fruit baskets and disposable agricultural irrigation pipes. The first waste scenario included 10% recycling, 80% landfill, and 10% incineration. The second scenario consisted of 50% recycling, 20% landfill, and 30% incineration. The third scenario had 65% recycling, 10% landfill, and 25% incineration. Input data included using resources (water, raw materials), energy (electricity, fuels), and all emissions based on the function unit. The impact categories consisted of global warming, ozone depletion, fuel consumption, and toxicity to humans. SimaPro 9 software was run and the IMPACT + 2002 assessment method was employed to assess the environmental impact. According to the findings, the recycling process performed better than the landfill and incineration processes in all scenarios. The third scenario was determined as the most beneficent one in waste disposal of the two containers. In all effective categories, except air pollutants, the life cycle impact of PET was greater than that of LDPE. Furthermore, the life cycle impact of PET was greater than that of LDPE in all phases of the cycle except transportation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

EIA:

Environmental Impact Assessment

LCA:

Life cycle assessment

PET:

Polyethylene terephthalate

PE:

Polyethylene

LDPE:

Low-density polyethylene

LCI:

Life cycle inventory

BOD:

Biochemical oxygen demand

COD:

Chemical oxygen demand

PTA:

Terephthalic acid

EG:

Ethylene glycol

DGT:

Diethylene glycol Terephthalate

NGL:

Natural gas liquids

NF:

Natural Gas Fractionation

GHG:

Greenhouse gas

MSW:

Municipal Solid Waste

GWP:

Global warming potential

LCIA:

Life Cycle Impact Assessment

CFC:

Chlorofluorocarbons

VOC:

Volatile Organic Compounds

References

  1. Gómez G, Meneses M, Ballinas L, Castells F (2009) Seasonal characterization of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the city of Chihuahua. Mexico Waste manag 29(7):2018–2024

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahamed A, Veksha A, Yin K, Weerachanchai P, Giannis A, Lisak G (2020) Environmental impact assessment of converting flexible packaging plastic waste to pyrolysis oil and multi-walled carbon nanotubes. J Hazard Mater 390:121449

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Simon B, Amor MB, Földényi R (2016) Life cycle impact assessment of beverage packaging systems: focus on the collection of post-consumer bottles. J Clean Prod 112:238–248

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Caputo P, Ducoli C, Clementi M (2014) Strategies and tools for eco-efficient local food supply scenarios. Sustainability 6(2):631–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Koshti R, Mehta L, Samarth N (2018) Biological recycling of polyethylene terephthalate: a mini-review. J Polym Environ 26(8):3520–3529

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Almeida C, Rodrigues A, Bonilla S, Giannetti B (2010) Emergy as a tool for Ecodesign: evaluating materials selection for beverage packages in Brazil. J Clean Prod 18(1):32–43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Webb HK, Arnott J, Crawford RJ, Ivanova EP (2013) Plastic degradation and its environmental implications with special reference to poly (ethylene terephthalate). Polymers 5(1):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ncube LK, Ude AU, Ogunmuyiwa EN, Zulkifli R, Beas IN (2021) An overview of plastic waste generation and management in food packaging industries. Recycling 6(1):12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Alabi OA, Ologbonjaye KI, Awosolu O, Alalade OE (2019) Public and environmental health effects of plastic wastes disposal: a review. J Toxicol Risk Assess 5(021):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  10. Verma R, Vinoda K, Papireddy M, Gowda A (2016) Toxic pollutants from plastic waste-a review. Procedia Environ Sci 35:701–708

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Doka G (2003) Life cycle inventories of waste treatment services. Ecoinvent report no. 13. Swiss centre for life cycle inventories, vol 13. Dübendorf, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sepperumal U, Markandan M, Palraja I (2013) Micromorphological and chemical changes during biodegradation of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) by Penicillium sp. J Microbiol Biotechnol Res 3(4):47–53

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gomes TS, Visconte LL, Pacheco EB (2019) Life cycle assessment of polyethylene terephthalate packaging: an overview. J Polym Environ 27(3):533–548

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lomate GB, Dandi B, Mishra S (2018) Development of antimicrobial LDPE/Cu nanocomposite food packaging film for extended shelf life of peda. Food packaging and shelf life 16:211–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sen SK, Raut S (2015) Microbial degradation of low density polyethylene (LDPE): a review. J Environ Chem Eng 3(1):462–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Abbas S, Kousar S, Pervaiz A (2021) Effects of energy consumption and ecological footprint on CO2 emissions: an empirical evidence from Pakistan. Environ Dev Sustain 23(9):13364–13381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01216-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Toniolo S, Mazzi A, Niero M, Zuliani F, Scipioni A (2013) Comparative LCA to evaluate how much recycling is environmentally favourable for food packaging. Resour Conserv Recycl 77:61–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Aryan Y, Yadav P, Samadder SR (2019) Life Cycle Assessment of the existing and proposed plastic waste management options in India: a case study. J Clean Prod 211:1268–1283

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18(1):73–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wardenaar T, van Ruijven T, Beltran AM, Vad K, Guinée J, Heijungs R (2012) Differences between LCA for analysis and LCA for policy: a case study on the consequences of allocation choices in bio-energy policies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(8):1059–1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0431-x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Greene J (2011) Life cycle assessment of reusable and single-use plastic bags in California. California State University and Chico Research Foundation

  22. Iswara AP, Farahdiba AU, Boedisantoso R, Rosyid A, Priambodo S, Chiang Hsieh L-H (2022) Carbon footprint of offshore platform in Indonesia using life cycle approach. Environ Dev Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02526-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Arena U, Mastellone ML, Perugini F (2003) Life cycle assessment of a plastic packaging recycling system. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(2):92–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Perugini F, Mastellone ML, Arena U (2004) Environmental aspects of mechanical recycling of PE and PET: a life cycle assessment study. Prog Rubber Plast Recycl 20(1):69–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/147776060402000106

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Foolmaun RK, Ramjeawon T (2008) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of PET bottles and comparative LCA of three disposal options in Mauritius. Int J Environ Waste Manag 2(1–2):125–138

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhang R, Ma X, Shen X, Zhai Y, Zhang T, Ji C, Hong J (2020) PET bottles recycling in China: an LCA coupled with LCC case study of blanket production made of waste PET bottles. J Environ Manage 260:110062

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Misiurak A, Ramsay F, Tang X, Yuan Y (2018) Beyond styrofoam: A Life Cycle Analysis and Eco-Efficiency Portfolio of Single-Use Containers (Polystyrene, Plastic, Biodegradable Plastic, Paper, and Aluminum). ENVR 400, Community Project in Environmental Science

  28. Jaduduva J, Bohers A, Hroncova E Landfilling and incineration as LDPE bubble foil life-cycle laste stage. In: Waste Forum, Czech 2018. Czech Environmental Management Center, pp494–502

  29. Jaafarzadeh N, Ahmadmoazzam M, Kojloo R, Jorfi S, Baasim Y (2021) The environmental performance of four municipal solid waste management scenarios: a life cycle assessment study. Environ Qual Manage 31(2):77–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Finkbeiner M, Inaba A, Tan R, Christiansen K, Klüppel H-J (2006) The new international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):80–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kachoee MS, Salimi M, Amidpour M (2018) The long-term scenario and greenhouse gas effects cost-benefit analysis of Iran’s electricity sector. Energy 143:585–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Cherubini F, Bargigli S, Ulgiati S (2009) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management strategies: landfilling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy 34(12):2116–2123

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Chen L, Pelton RE, Smith TM (2016) Comparative life cycle assessment of fossil and bio-based polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. J Clean Prod 137:667–676

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Kouloumpis V, Pell R, Correa-Cano M, Yan X (2020) Potential trade-offs between eliminating plastics and mitigating climate change: an LCA perspective on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Cornwall. Sci Total Environ 727:138681

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Nguyen L, Hsuan GY, Spatari S (2017) Life Cycle Economic and Environmental Implications of Pristine High Density Polyethylene and Alternative materials in Drainage Pipe Applications. J Polym Environ 25(3):925–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-016-0843-y

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Roes AL, Marsili E, Nieuwlaar E, Patel MK (2007) Environmental and cost Assessment of a polypropylene Nanocomposite. J Polym Environ 15(3):212–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-007-0064-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Arvanitoyannis IS (2008) ISO 14040: life cycle assessment (LCA)–principles and guidelines. Waste management for the food industries:97–132

  38. Sundqvist J-O (1999) Life cycles assessments and solid waste: guidelines for solid waste treatment and disposal in LCA. AFR, Naturvårdsverket

    Google Scholar 

  39. Aja OC, Al-Kayiem HH (2014) Review of municipal solid waste management options in Malaysia, with an emphasis on sustainable waste-to-energy options. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 16(4):693–710

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Eriksson O, Finnveden G (2009) Plastic waste as a fuel-CO 2-neutral or not? Energy Environ Sci 2(9):907–914

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Chilton T, Burnley S, Nesaratnam S (2010) A life cycle assessment of the closed-loop recycling and thermal recovery of post-consumer PET. Resour Conserv Recycl 54(12):1241–1249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Margallo M, Aldaco R, Irabien A, Carrillo V, Fischer M, Bala A, Fullana P (2014) research Life cycle assessment modelling of waste-to-energy incineration in Spain and Portugal. Waste manag 32 (6):492–499

  43. USEPA (2006) Life-cycle assessment: principles and practice. Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC), work assignment manager Mary Ann Curran Systems Analysis Branch. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio

    Google Scholar 

  44. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):324. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Madival S, Auras R, Singh SP, Narayan R (2009) Assessment of the environmental profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell containers using LCA methodology. J Clean Prod 17(13):1183–1194

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Papong S, Malakul P, Trungkavashirakun R, Wenunun P, Chom-in T, Nithitanakul M, Sarobol E (2014) Comparative assessment of the environmental profile of PLA and PET drinking water bottles from a life cycle perspective. J Clean Prod 65:539–550

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Assamoi B, Lawryshyn Y (2012) The environmental comparison of landfilling vs. incineration of MSW accounting for waste diversion. Waste manag 32(5):1019–1030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Martin EJ, Oliveira DS, Oliveira LS, Bezerra BS (2021) Life cycle comparative assessment of pet bottle waste management options: a case study for the city of Bauru, Brazil. Waste manag 119:226–234

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Doka G (2013) Updates to Life Cycle Inventories of Waste Treatment Services - part II: waste incineration. Doka Life Cycle Assessments, Zurich 2013, http://www.dokach/ecoinventMSWIupdateLCI2013.pdf

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was extracted from a master’s thesis at Yazd Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences in 2021. The authors appreciate all those who contributed to the collection of data and completion of this research project.

Funding

This study was funded by Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Science and Technology Research Center, Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Science, Yazd, Iran

    Tayebeh Abbasi & Ali Asghar Ebrahimi

  2. Environmental Technologies Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

    Neamatollah Jaafarzadeh Haghighi Fard

  3. Center for Healthcare Data modeling, Departments of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of public health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

    Farzan Madadizadeh

  4. Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Health, Occupational Safety and Health Research Center, NICICO, World Safety Organization and Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences, Rafsanjan, Iran

    Hadi Eslami

Authors
  1. Tayebeh Abbasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Neamatollah Jaafarzadeh Haghighi Fard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Farzan Madadizadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hadi Eslami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ali Asghar Ebrahimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by TA, AAE, NJH and FM. The first draft of the manuscript was written by TA, NJH, FM, and HE. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript and read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Asghar Ebrahimi.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

There are no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abbasi, T., Jaafarzadeh Haghighi Fard, N., Madadizadeh, F. et al. Environmental Impact Assessment of Low-Density Polyethylene and Polyethylene Terephthalate Containers Using a Life Cycle Assessment Technique. J Polym Environ 31, 3493–3508 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-023-02806-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-023-02806-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation