Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reusable vs. disposable cups revisited: guidance in life cycle comparisons addressing scenario, model, and parameter uncertainties for the US consumer

  • PACKAGING SYSTEMS INCLUDING RECYCLING
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Despite interest in an environmentally conscious decision between disposable and reusable cups, a comprehensive and current study for US consumers is not yet available. Guidance in favor of single-use cups rely on outdated or non-ISO-compliant results with limited uncertainty information. Such claims are insufficiently generalizable. This article delivers an updated comparative life cycle impact assessment of reusable ceramic cups and single-use expanded polystyrene cups.

Methods

The ReCiPe midpoint model was selected. Scenario uncertainties are addressed by evaluating compliant standard dishwashing appliance models from 2004 to 2013 used in 26 US subregional utility grids. A utility snapshot from 2009 is applied with extension to recent shifts in generation from increased penetration of natural gas and renewable energy. Parameter uncertainty is quantified through statistical methods.

Results

Where there is statistical difference, results almost entirely favor reusable cups in the USA. For climate change, 16 % of users have higher impact for ceramic cups washed in 2013 by minimally compliant dishwashers. Higher climate change impacts for 32 % of reusable cup users is indicated with 2004 average dishwashers, though using a cup twice between washes shifts the impact in favor of the reusable cup.

Conclusions

Disposable cup scenarios do not account for film sleeves, lids, printing, and less conservative shipping weights and distances and therefore reflect a best case scenario. Impact for reusable cups is expected to decrease further as the electricity mix becomes less CO2-intensive with replacement of coal-fired generators by natural gas, wind, and solar and as less efficient dishwashers are replaced with new units compliant to current laws.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aboussouan L, Meent Dvd, Schönnenbeck M, Hauschild M, Delbeke K, Struijs J, Russell A, Haes HUd, Atherton J, Tilborg Wv, Karman C, Korenromp R, Sap G, Baukloh A, Dubreuit A, Adams W, Heijungs R, Jolliet O, Koning Ad, Chapman P, Ligthart T, Verdonck F, Loos Rvd, Eikelboom R, Kuyper J (2004) Declaration of Apeldoorn on LCIA of non-ferrous metals. Life Cycle Initiative, Milan

  • Allwood JM, Ashby MF, Gutowski TG, Worrell E (2011) Material efficiency: a white paper. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:362–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Althaus H-J, Bauer C, Doka G, Dones R, Frischknecht R, Hellweg S, Humbert S, Jungbluth N, Köllner T, Loerincik Y, Margni M, Nemecek T (2010) Implementation of life cycle impact assessment methods. Technical report, v2.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dbendorf

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2012) Methodological challenges in volumetric and impact-oriented water footprints. J Ind Ecol 17(1):79–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boustani A, Sahni S, Gutowski TG, Graves S (2010) Appliance remanufacturing and energy savings. Technical Report MITI-1-a-2010. MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • California Energy Commission (CEC) (2010) 2009 Residential appliance saturation study. Technical report. CEC, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman J (2009) Design for (Emotional) durability. Des Issues 25:29–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper T (2005) Slower consumption: reflections on product life spans and the throwaway society. J Ind Ecol 9(1-2):51–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper T, Mayers CK (2000) Prospects for household appliances (E-SCOPE study findings). Urban Mines, Halifax. Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Denison RA (1998) Environmental comparison of reusable ceramic mugs vs. disposable cups made from polystyrene or virgin bleached paperboard. Technical report. The Alliance for Environmental Innovation

  • EarthShift (2011) SimaPro software documentation. http://earthshift.com/software/simapro

  • Ecoinvent (2007) Overview and methodology. Technical report, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. v2.0. Ecoinvent reports no. 1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Du¨bendorf

    Google Scholar 

  • Ecoinvent Centre (2007) v2.0. ecoinvent reports no. 1–25. Ecoinvent Centre, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmel JM, Parrott K, Beamish J (2003) Dishwashing and water conservation: an opportunity for environmental education. J Ext 41(1)

  • Forsyth A (2012) KeepCup press release. http://www.pr.com/press-release/422107

  • Franklin Associates (2011) Life cycle inventory of foam polystyrene, paper-based, and PLA foodservice products. Technical report. Franklin Associates, Prairie Village

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin Associates Ltd. (2006) Life cycle inventory of polystyrene foam, bleached paperboard, and corrugated paperboard foodservice products. Technical report. Franklin Associates, Prairie Village

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedonia Group Inc. (2011) World foodservice disposables press release. http://www.marketresearch.com/Freedonia-Group-Inc-v1247/Foodservice-Disposables-6842167/

  • Hoak DE, Parker DS, Hermelink AH (2008) How energy efficient are modern dishwashers? Technical Report FSEC-CR-1772-08. University of Central Florida, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  • Hocking MB (1994) Reusable and disposable cups: an energy-based evaluation. Environ Manag 18(6):889–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joint Research Commission (JRC) (2010) ILCD handbook: analysis of existing environmental impact assessment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment. JRC, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave LB, Cobas-Flores E, Hendrickson CT, McMichael FC (1995) Using input-output analysis to estimate economy-wide discharges. Environ Sci Technol 29(9):420–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ligthart TN, Ansems AMM (2007) Single use cups or reusable (coffee) drinking systems: an environmental comparison. Technical Report 2006-A-R0246(E)/B. TNO Built Environment and Geosciences, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Marriott J, Matthews HS (2005) Environmental effects of interstate power trading on electricity consumption mixes. Environ Sci Technol 39:8584–8590

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels T (2010) The 2010 ERC directory of waste-to-energy plants. Technical report, ERC, Washington

  • Nielsen SJ, Popkin BM (2003) Patterns and trends in food portion sizes, 1977–1998. J Am Med Assoc 289(4):450–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson U (2005) Confidence intervals for the mean of a log-normal distribution. J Stat Educ 13

  • Pulliam R (2009) California residential efficiency market share tracking. Appliances 2007. Technical report. Intron, Inc., San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Saouter E, van Hoff G (2002) A database for the life-cycle assessment of Procter & Gamble laundry detergents. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(2):103–114

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Singh AK, Singh A, Engelhardt M (1997) The lognormal distribution in environmental applications. Technical report. U.S. EPA, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Stitching Disposables Benelux (2013) Single-use cups win every time! http://www.plasticseurope.org/information-centre/news/news-archives-2008/single-use-cups-win-every-time.aspx. Accessed 18 Dec 2013

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (2012) 2012-05 direct final rule technical support document, chapter Appendix 8D: lifetime distributions. Number dockte id: EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (OEERE) (2012) Notice of effective dates for direct final rule (response to comments). Technical report FR doc no: 2012–23953. OEERE, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2012) Annual energy outlook 2012: electric power projections of EMM region, reliability first corporation/west, reference case. Technical report. EIA, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2013) Electric power annual 2011. Technical report. EIA, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2008) Energy star program requirements for dishwashers: partner commitments. Technical report. U.S. EPA, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2009) Municipal solid waste generation, recycling and disposal in the United States detailed tables and figures for 2008. Technical report, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. U.S. EPA, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2011) Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal in the United States: facts and figures for 2010. Technical report EPA-530-F-11-005, Solid waste and emergency response. U.S. EPA, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2012) Emissions and generation resource integrated database (eGRID). Technical report. U.S. EPA, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2013a) Dishwashers key product criteria, U.S. EPA, Washington. https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=dishwash.pr_crit_dishwashers Accessed 5 Apr 2013

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2013b) Find energy star qualified dishwashers, U.S. EPA, Washington. http://www.downloads.energystar.gov/bi/qplist/Dishwashers%20Product%20List.pdf Accessed 5 Apr 2013

  • U.S. Government Printing Office (USGPO) (2012) Energy conservation program: energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers; final rule and proposed rule, Federal register 77 (104), 10 CFR Parts 429 and 430. USGPO, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidema BP (1998) Multi-user test of the data quality matrix for product life cycle inventory data. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(5):259–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou X-H, Gao S, Hui SL (1997) Methods for comparing the means of two independent log-normal samples. Biometrics 53:1129–1135

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. William G. Lowrie Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Laura Woods & Bhavik R. Bakshi

Authors
  1. Laura Woods
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bhavik R. Bakshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bhavik R. Bakshi.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Hans-Jürgen Garvens

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(PDF 7.65 MB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Woods, L., Bakshi, B.R. Reusable vs. disposable cups revisited: guidance in life cycle comparisons addressing scenario, model, and parameter uncertainties for the US consumer. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19, 931–940 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0697-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0697-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation