Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Life cycle assessment of composite packaging waste management—a Chinese case study on aseptic packaging

  • LCA OF WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Approximately 46,000 t/day of packaging waste was generated in China in 2010, of which, 2,500 t was composite packaging waste. Due to the lack of recycling technology and an imperfect recovery system, most of this waste is processed in sanitary landfills. An effective packaging waste management system is needed since this waste not only uses up valuable resources, but also increases environmental pollution. The purpose of this study is to estimate the environmental impact of the treatment scenarios in composite packaging waste which are commonly used in China, to determine the optimum composite packaging waste management strategy, and to design new separating and recycling technology for composite packaging, based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) results.

Methods

To identify the best treatment for composite packaging waste, the LCA software SimaPro 7.1.6 was used to assist in the analysis of the environmental impacts, coupled with the impact assessment method Eco-Indicator 99. LCA for composite packaging waste management was carried out by estimating the environmental impacts of the four scenarios most often used in China: landfill, incineration, paper recycling, and separation of polyethylene and aluminum. One ton of post-consumption Tetra Pak waste was selected as the functional unit. The data on the mass, energy fluxes, and environmental emissions were obtained from literature and site investigations.

Results and discussion

Landfill—scenario 1—was the worst waste management option. Paper recycling—scenario 3—was more environmentally friendly than incineration, scenario 2. Scenario 4, separating out polyethylene and aluminum, was established based on the LCA result, and inventory data were obtained from the demonstration project built by this research. In scenario 4, the demonstration project for the separation of polyethylene and aluminum was built based on the optimum conditions from single-factor and orthogonal experiments. Adding this flow process into the life cycle of composite packaging waste treatment decreased the environmental impacts significantly.

Conclusions

The research results can provide useful scientific information for policymakers in China to make decisions regarding composite packaging waste. Incineration could reduce more environmental impacts in the respiratory inorganics category, and separation of polyethylene and aluminum, in the fossil fuel category. If energy saving is the primary governmental goal, the separation of polyethylene and aluminum would be the better choice, while incineration would be the better choice for emission reduction.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Almeida CMVB, Rodrigues AJM, Bonilla SH, Giannetti BF (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 

  • Banar M, Cokaygil Z, Ozkan A (2009) Life cycle assessment of solid waste management options for Eskisehir, Turkey. Waste Manage 29(1):54–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boer JD, Boer ED, Jager J (2007) LCA-IWM: a decision support tool for sustainability assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manage 27(8):1032–1045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di XH, Nie ZR, Zuo TY (2005) Life cycle emission inventories for the fuels consumed by thermal power in China. China Environ Sci 25(5):632–635 (in Chinese)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz R, Warith M (2006) Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid wastes: development of the WASTED model. Waste Manage 26(8):886–901

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall T, Assefa G, Björklund A, Eriksson O, Finnveden G (2007) What life-cycle assessment does and does not do in assessments of waste management. Waste Manage 27(8):989–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China (2009) Requirements of restricting excessive package—foods and cosmetics (GB 23350-2009)

  • Hong RJ, Wang GF, Guo RZ, Cheng X, Liu Q, Zhang PJ (2006) Life cycle assessment of BMT based integrated municipal solid waste management: case study in Pudong, China. Resour Conserv Recy 49(2):129–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong JL, Li XZ, Cui ZJ (2010) Life cycle assessment of four municipal solid waste management scenarios in China. Waste Manage 30(11):2362–2369

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • International Standardisation Organisation (2006) ISO 14044: 2006 environmental management–life cycle assessment–requirements and guidelines. ISO Central Secretariat, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin YN, Zhou BY, Ding MY, Li L (2008) Analysis of the generation and recycling of packaging waste in China. Res Environ Sci 21(6):90–94 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Khoo HH (2009) Life cycle impact assessment of various waste conversion technologies. Waste Manage 29(6):1892–1900

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkeby JT, Birgisdottir H, Bhander GS, Hauschild M, Christensen TH (2007) Modelling of environmental impacts of solid waste landfilling within the life-cycle analysis program EASEWASTE. Waste Manage 27(7):961–970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu YH, Liu T, Sha GY, Peng X (2008) Life cycle inventory model of cargo transportation. J Anhui Univ Technol (Natural Science) 25(2):205–207 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu XL, Wang HT, Chen J, He Q, Zhang H, Jiang R, Chen XX, Hou P (2010) Method and basic model for development of Chinese reference life cycle database. Acta Sci Circumstantiae 30(10):2136–2144 (in Chinese)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ma LP, Wang ZH, Gong XZ, Nie ZR (2006) Life cycle inventory analysis of two types of freight transport on city roads. The new progress on material sciences and engineering. pp. 12–16 (in Chinese)

  • 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 

  • Mendes MR, Aramaki T, Hanaki K (2004) Comparison of the environmental impact of incineration and landfilling in São Paulo city as determined by LCA. Resour Conserv Recy 41(1):47–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrild H, Damgaard A, Christensen TH (2008) Life cycle assessment of waste paper management: the importance of technology data and system boundaries in assessing recycling and incineration. Resour Conserv Recy 52(12):1391–1398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrow H (2010) Cadmium and cadmium alloys. Kirk-Othmer encyclopedia of chemical technology. Wiley, New York

  • Mourad AL, Garcia EEC, Vilela GB, Zuben FV (2008) Environmental effects from a recycling rate increase of cardboard of aseptic packaging system for milk using life cycle approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):140–146

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peters GM, Rowley HV (2009) Environmental comparison of biosolids management systems using life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 43(8):2674–2679

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • PRe Consultants (2007) The Eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment manual for designers. Netherlands: Amersfoort

  • Ross S, Evans D (2003) The environmental effect of reusing and recycling a plastic-based packaging system. J Clean Prod 11(5):561–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt JH, Holm P, Merrild A, Christensen P (2007) Life cycle assessment of the waste hierarchy—a Danish case study on waste paper. Waste Manage 27(11):1519–1530

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Villanueva A, Wenzel H (2007) Paper waste-recycling, incineration or landfilling? A review of existing life cycle assessments. Waste Manage 27(8):529–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang XW, Hua B (2006) Global scope assessment: a novel method and its application to the Chinese paper industry. Energ Policy 35(3):1610–1615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler J, Bilitewski B (2007) Comparative evaluation of life cycle assessment models for solid waste management. Waste Manage 27(8):1021–1031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie MH, Li L, Qiao Q, Sun QH (2011) A comparative study on milk packaging using life cycle assessment—from PA-PE-Al laminate and polyethylene in China. J Clean Prod 19(17–18):2100–2106

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan BR, Nie ZR, Di XH (2006) Life cycle inventories of fossil fuels in China (II): final life cycle inventories. Mod Chem Ind 26(4):59–61 (in Chinese)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zabaniotou A, Kassidi E (2003) Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging made from polystyrene and recycled paper. J Clean Prod 11(5):549–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao W, Voet E, Zhang YF, Huppes G (2009a) Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste management with regard to greenhouse gas emissions: case study of Tianjin, China. Sci Total Environ 407(5):1517–1526

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao Y, Wang HT, Lu WJ, Damgaard A, Christensen TH (2009b) Life-cycle assessment of the municipal solid waste management system in Hangzhou, China. Waste Manage Res 27(4):399–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou BY, Guo LL, Li L, Yu HJ (2010) Characteristics of generation and recycling of plastic packaging waste in China and management countermeasures. Res Environ Sci 23(3):282–287 (in Chinese)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zuben FV (2006) Recycling polyethylene and aluminium from aseptic packaging via plasma process. Annals of IV global conference on sustainable product development and life cycle engineering-sustainable manufacturing, RR14

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences for carrying out this assessment and also to thank the reviewers for their comments. The work was funded by the Critical Patented Projects in the Control and Management of the National Polluted Water Bodies in China (no. 2008ZX07208-002-001) and the Chinese National Public Interest Environmental Protection Research Fund (no. HBGY2009467080).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Key Laboratory of Eco-Industry of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, People’s Republic of China

    Minghui Xie

  2. Key Laboratory of Eco-Industry of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, People’s Republic of China

    Qi Qiao & Qihong Sun

  3. China National Environmental Monitoring Centre, Beijing, 100012, People’s Republic of China

    Linlin Zhang

Authors
  1. Minghui Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qi Qiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qihong Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Linlin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Minghui Xie or Qi Qiao.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Hans-Jürgen Garvens

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0516-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation