Environmental evaluation of single-use and reusable cups

  • Nuria GarridoEmail author
  • M. Dolors Alvarez del Castillo
LCA Case Studies


Goal, Scope and Background

The objective of the study was to determine the environmental effects of the resuable cup used during a major event (which took place in Barcelona, Universal Forum of Cultures, 2004), compared with a single-use cup of the same composition (polypropylene) but with different physical characteristics such as mass, shape and capacity.


To perform the environmental evaluations and the comparison of both types of cups, the SimaPro software developed and marketed by PRé Consultants was used. The environmental evaluation of the reusable cup was compared with that of a single-use cup using the LCA methodology [6]. The functional unit used was: ‘Serving 1000 liters of draught beverages’. The objective of the study was to find the minimum number of cycles the reusable cup has to do so that its environmental impact is smaller than that of the single-use cup.

Results and Conclusions

Taking into account all the hypotheses put forward, the study drew the conclusion that the minimum number of uses of the reusable cup necessary for it to have a smaller environmental impact than the single-use cup is 10. The contribution of each process taking part in the entire life cycle of the cups was also studied in detail. In the case of the single-use cup, the most important contribution to all the impact categories is due to the production of polypropylene and the fabrication of the cup, except for the heavy metals category where it is due to the management of the waste coming from the cup’s use.

In the case of the reusable cup being used 10 times, the contribution to the different impact categories of the waste generated by the cup’s use is negligible compared to the contribution of the fabrication and washing processes. In addition, the washing process is the one which contributes most to the ozone layer depletion, heavy metals and carcinogens categories.

As the number of uses of the reusable cup increases, the contribution to all the environmental impact categories decreases. However, this reduction is not as significant for the ozone layer depletion, heavy metals and carcinogens categories. This is due to the washing process and the fact that the electrical consumption associated with it increases with the number of washings and, consequently, of uses.

Recommendations and Perspectives

From the environmental point of view, the reusable cup must be used at least 10 times to have less impact than the single-use cup. This is mainly due to the higher weight of the reusable cup and, therefore, the greater amount of raw material needed for its fabrication. If the LCA methodology had been introduced during the design of the reusable cup, its weight would have been lower. This modification would have resulted in a reduction of the environmental impact associated with the use of the reusable cup and, consequently, a smaller number of uses would have been necessary to attain the same level of impact as the single-use cup.


Environmental impact life cycle assessment polypropylene reusable cups single-use cups 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Alvarez D, Garrido N et al. (2004): Informe Final sobre la implantació del sistema de gestió ambiental i la introducció de bones pràctiques ambientals en la celebració del Fòrum Universal de les Cultures Barcelona 2004Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Aresta M, Caroppo A (2000): An introduction of the Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment ELCA. Metea Research Center University of BariGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bart Desmedt et al. (2003): Smash Events. Ecological event management. Guidelines for events organisers. Project funded by European Commission under the Life ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Bohlmann GM (2004): Biodegradable packaging life-cycle assessment. Environmental Progress 23(4) 342–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Butlletí de cojuntura elèctrica a Catalunya (2002): Generalitat de Catalunya. Departament de Treball, Indústria, Comerç i Turisme, Desembre 2002Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    ISO 14040 Series — Life Cycle AssessmentGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Metropolitan Waste Agency’s 2002 Report (2003): Agència Metropolitana de ResidusGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    PRé Consultants B.V. (1997): SimaPro. User manual. The software tool to analyse and develop environmental sound products. NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    PRé Consultants B.V. (1997): SimaPro. User database manual. The software tool to analyse and develop environmental sound products. Single. NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Ross S, Evans D (2003): The environmental effect of reusing and recycling a plastic-based packaging system. Journal of Cleaner Production 11(5) 561–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Tan RBH, Khoo HH (2005): Life cycle assessment of EPS and CPB inserts: design considerations and end life scenarios. Journal of Environmental Management 74(3) 195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Van Doorsselaer K, Lox F (1999): estimation of the energy needs in life cycle analysis of one-way and returnable glass packaging. Packaging Technology and Science 12(5) 235–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Zabaniotou A, Kassidi E (2003): Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging made from polystyrene and recycled paper. Journal of Cleaner Production 11(5) 549–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nuria Garrido
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Dolors Alvarez del Castillo
    • 1
  1. 1.Chemical Engineering Department (EUETIT)Technical University of Catalonia (UPC)Terrassa, BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations