Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Life cycle sustainability assessments (LCSA) of four disposal scenarios for used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Improper disposal of post-consumer Polythylene Terephthalate (PET) bottles constitutes an eyesore to the environmental landscape and gives rise to numerous environmental and health-related nuisances. These problems impact negatively on the flourishing tourism industry in Mauritius. The present study was therefore undertaken to determine a sustainable disposal method among four selected disposal alternatives of post-consumer PET bottles in Mauritius. The disposal scenarios investigated were: 100 % landfilling (scenario 1); 75 % incineration with energy recovery and 25 % landfilling (scenario 2); 40 % flake production (partial recycling) and 60 % landfilling (scenario 3); and 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling (scenario 4). Environmental impacts of the disposal alternatives were determined using ISO standardized life cycle assessment (LCA) and the SimaPro 7.1 software. Cost-effectiveness was determined using Life cycle costing (LCC) as described by the recent Code of Practice on LCC. An excel-based model was constructed to calculate the various costs. Social impacts were evaluated using Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) based on the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment. For this purpose, a new and simple social life cycle impact assessment method was developed for aggregating inventory results. Finally, Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) was conducted to conclude the sustainable disposal route of post-consumer PET bottles in Mauritius. The methodology proposed to work out LCSA was to combine the three assessment tools: LCA, LCC and S-LCA using the Analytical Hierarchy Process. The results indicated that scenario 4 was the sustainable disposal method of post-consumer PET bottles. Scenario 1 was found to be the worst scenario.

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

Access this article

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

Notes

  1. Information on this project can be obtained from the Externe (2004).

  2. UNEP/SETAC Guidelines on S-LCA defined five stakeholders: workers/employees, local community, society, consumer and value chain actors.

  3. All stakeholders subcategories are assumed to have equal weightage, although subcategories and stakeholders are not equal in their relevance.

  4. It should be pointed out that comparison was conducted on ‘single scenarios’ as opposed to combined scenarios since the LCIA method proposed by Ciroth and Franze (2011), does not explain how to calculate factors for combined scenarios.

  5. The scale of absolute judgements can be obtained from colorado.edu/geography/leyk/geog_5113/readings/ saaty _2008.pdf.

References

  • Ayalon, O., Avnimelech, Y., & Shechter, M. (2000). Application of a comparative multi-dimensional LCA in solid waste management policy: The case of soft drink containers. Journal of Environmental Science and Policy, 3(2–3), 135–144.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Benoît, C., Norris, G. A., Valdivia, S., Ciroth, A., Moberg, A., Bos, U., et al. (2010). The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(2), 156–163 (Springer 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chilton, T., Burnley, S., & Nesaratnam, S. (2010). A life cycle assessment of the closed loop recycling and thermal recovery of post-consumer PET. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54, 1241–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciroth, A., & Franze, J. (2011). LCA of an eco labelled notebook. Consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle. Available at: www.greendeltatc.com/uploads/media/LCA_laptop_final.pdf. Accessed November 15, 2011.

  • Cleary, J. (2009). Life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste managements: A comparative analysis of selected peer reviewed literature. Environmental International, 35, 1256–1266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craighill, A. L., & Powell, J. C. (1996). Life cycle assessment and economic evaluation of recycling: a case study. Resource Conservation and Recycling, 17, 75–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer, L. C., Hauschild, M. Z., & Schierbeck, J. (2006). A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(2), 88–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Extern, E. (2004). European Commission: Externalities of Energy—Methodology 2005 Update. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2004. Available at: http://www.externe.info. Accessed October, 13 2011.

  • Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E. M., Lehmann, A., & Traverso, M. (2010). Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability, 2, 3309–3322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinee, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., et al. (2009). Recent developments in life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foolmaun, R. K., & Ramjeeawon, T. (2008). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of PET bottles and comparative LCA of three disposal options in Mauritius. International Journal Environment and Waste Management, 2(1/2), 125–138.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Foolmaun, R. K., & Ramjeeawon, T. (2011). Disposal of post-consumer polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) bottles: Comparison of five disposal alternatives in the small island state of Mauritius using a life cycle assessment tool. Environmental Technology, 33(5), 563–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foolmaun, R. K., & Ramjeeawon, T. (2012). Comparative life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of four disposal scenarios for used polyethylene Terephthalate bottles in Mauritius. Environmental Technology, 33(17), 2007–2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foolmaun, R. K., Chamilall, D. S., & Munhurrun, G. (2011). Overview of non-hazardous solid waste in the small island state of Mauritius. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55, 966–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goralczyk, M., & Kulczycka, J. (2005). LCC application in the Polish mining industry. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 16(2), 119–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, T., James, K. L., Lundie, S., & Sonneveld, K. (2001). Life cycle assessment for paper and packaging waste management scenarios in Victoria. Final report of Stage 2. http://www.cfd.rmit.edu.au/programs/life_cycle_assessment/paper_packaging_lca. Accessed September 15, 2006.

  • Hauschild, M. Z., Huijbregts, M., Jolliet, O., MacLeod, M., Margni, M., Van de Meent, D., et al. (2008). Building a consensus model for life cycle impact assessment of chemicals: The search for harmony and parsimony. Environmental Science Technology, 42, 7032–7037.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hunkeler, D., & Rebitzer, G. (2005). The future of life cycle assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 10, 305–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunkeler, D., Lichtenvort, K., & Rebitzer, G. (Eds.). (2008). Environmental life cycle costing. Published by Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Brussels. p. 191. ISBN:1420054708; 9781420054705.

  • ISO. (2006a). ISO 14040 International Standard Organization. In Environmental managementlife cycle assessmentprinciples and framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organisation for Standardization.

  • ISO. (2006b). ISO 14044 International standard organization. In Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organisation for Standardisation.

  • Jørgensen, A., Le Bocq, A., Nazarkina, L., & Hauschild, M. (2008). Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), 96–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, A., Hauschild, M. Z., Jørgensen, M. S., & Wangel, A. (2009). Relevance and feasibility of social life cycle assessment from a company perspective. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14(3), 204–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, A., Finkbeiner, M., Jørgensen, M. S., & Hauschild, M. Z. (2010). Defining the baseline in social life cycle assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(4), 376–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloepffer, W. (2008). State-of-the-Art in Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA). Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), 89–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korpi, E., & Ala-Risku, T. (2008). Life cycle costing: A review of published case studies. Managerial Auditing Journal, 23(3), 240–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindholm, A., & Suomala, P. (2007). Learning by costing sharpening cost image through the life cycle costing. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 56(8), P651–P672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendes, M. R., Amaraki, T., & Hanaki, K. (2004). Comparison of the environmental impact of incineration and landfilling in Sao Paulo city as determined by LCA. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 41(4), 47–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paragahawewa, U., Blackett, P., & Small, B. (2009). Report prepared for AgResearch June 2009 Social Life Cycle Analysis (S-LCA): Some methodological issues and potential application to cheese production in New Zealand. Available at: www.saiplatform.org/uploads/…/SocialLCA-FinalReport_July2009.p. Accessed November 11, 2010.

  • Perugini, F., Mastellone, M. L., & Umberto, A. (2004). Environmental aspects of mechanical recycling of PE and PET: A life cycle Assessment study. Progress in Rubber, Plastics and Recycling Technology, 20(1), 69–84.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rebitzer, G. (2005). Enhancing the application efficiency of life cycle assessment for industrial uses. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 10(6), 446. doi:10.1065/lca2005.11.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rebitzer, G., & Hunkeler, D. (2003). Life cycle costing in LCM: Ambitions, opportunities and limitations- discussing a framework. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 8(5), 253–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytical hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schau, E. M., Traverso, M., Lehmann, A., & Finkbeiner, M. (2011). Life cycle costing in sustainability assessment- a case study of remanufactured alternators. Sustainability, 3, 2268–2288. doi:10.3390/su3112268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, H. S., & Hyun, J. C. (1999). A study on the comparison of the various waste management scenarios for PET bottles using the life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 27, 267–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swarr, E. T., Hunkeler, D., Klopffer, W., Pesonen, H. L., Ciroth, A., Brent, A. C., et al. (2011). Environmental life cycle costing: A code of practice. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(5), 389–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP. (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. p. 104. ISBN:978-92-807-3021-0. Available at: www.unep.org/publications/search/pub_details_s.asp?ID=4102. Accessed January 16, 2011.

  • Von Krogh, L., Lerche Raadal, H., & Jorgen Hanssen, O. (2001). Life cycle assessment of different scenarios for waste treatment of a plastic bottle used for food packaging. OR 39.01. Ostfold Research Foundation. Available at: ostfoldforskning.no/uploads/dokumenter/publikasjoner/166.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2005.

  • White, P. R., Franke, M., & Hindle, P. (1999). Integrated solid waste management: A life cycle inventory. Gaithersburg, Md/Aspen: Chapman and Hall food science book/Publisher. ISBN:0-8342-1311-7.

  • Zhao, W., Van der Voet, E., Zhang, Y., & Huppes, G. (2009). Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste management with regard to greenhouse gas emissions: case study of Tianjin, China. Science Total Environment, 407, 1517–1526.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the Tertiary Education Commission of the Republic of Mauritius for funding this research under the PhD programme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajendra Kumar Foolmaun.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Foolmaun, R.K., Ramjeawon, T. Life cycle sustainability assessments (LCSA) of four disposal scenarios for used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Environ Dev Sustain 15, 783–806 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9406-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9406-0

Keywords

Navigation