Pooja Yadav, Luke

1. Environmental
Benefits of Reusable
Food Packaging
Pooja Yadav, Frans Silvenius,
Juha-Matti Katajajuuri & Ilkka
Leinonen
Luonnonvarakeskus

2. Goal of the
Study
2
Identify the environmentally sustainable food packaging
solutions based on new food delivery process using end of life
reuse and recycling concepts and compare the results with
conventional plastic packaging.

3. • Manufactured of Polypropylene
(PP)
• Weight of box is 138 g
• Volume of box is 1.2 liter
• Purpose: Food packaging
• Service: Take away
• End of life: Recyclable
• End of life: Incinerable
Reusable Packaging
Box
3

4. Extraction of Resources
Production of Polypropylene
Manufacturing of Box
Use & Resuse of Box
Collection of Box
Recycling Incineration with ER
Transportation from Sweden to Finland
Washing of Box
Production
Phase
Use &
Reuse
Phase
End of Life
Figure 1: Life cycle of packaging
Note: ER (Energy Recovery)
4

5. • Primary data source: Industrial data
• Secondary data source: Ecoinvent 3.6 database, such as
production of raw materials: PP, detergent, water and
Finnish mix electricity and literature.
• Emissions of incineration based on the carbon contents of
the materials.
• Recycling modelled assumed that recycled material
replaced by virgin material & material losses have been
considered.
Data Collection and Assumptions
5

6. Material Unit/box Amount
Production
Polypropylene g 138
Electricity kWh/box 0.0213
Transportation
Electricity kWh/km 0.23
Washing stage
Electricity kWh/box 0.10563
Detergent g/box 0.0675
Water L/box 0.338
End of life (Recycling)
Mass loss % 20
Electricity consumption kWh/kg 0.60
End of life (Incineration)
Electricity recovery kWh/kg -2.26
Heat recovery MJ/kg - 30.6
Table 1: Primary data used for analysis
6

7. Scenario
Analysis
• Box 10 times reused and Recycling
• Box 10 times reused and Incineration
• Box 30 times reused and Recycling
• Box 30 times reused and Incineration
• Box 100 times reused and Recycling
• Box 100 times reused and Incineration (Maximum
potential)
7

8. System boundary:
Cradle to Grave
Functional Unit:
One use of Box
8

9. (a) Single use box and Recycling
(b) Single use box and
Incineration
Reusable
Box
Material: PP
Weight: 138 g
Single Use
Box
Material: PP
Weight: 30 g
(a) Box 10, 30 and 100 times reused and
Recycling
(b) Box 10, 30 and 100 times reused and
Incineration
Comparative
Analysis
9

10. • There are chances that reusable box will throw in the
dustbin after single use, it depends on the consumer
behavior.
(a) Reusable box used 1 time and Recycling
(b) Reusable box used 1 time and Incineration
• Changes in source of electricity (100% renewable
electricity)
(a) All proposed scenarios using renewable electricity.
Sensitivity
Analysis
10

11. 11
RESULT
S

12. Contribution Analysis
Figure 2: Global Warming Potential (GWP) of different stages of one reusable box life cycle.
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Production Transportation Washing Recycling Incineration
GWP(Kg CO2 eq./ Box)
12

13. Scenario Analysis
0.00000
0.00500
0.01000
0.01500
0.02000
0.02500
0.03000
0.03500
0.04000
Box 100 times
reused (Recycling)
Box 100 times
reused
(Incineration)
Box 30 times
reused (Recycling)
Box 30 times
reused
(Incineration)
Box 10 times
reused (Recycling)
Box 10 times
reused
(Incineration)
GWP (kg CO2 eq.)/One use of box
Lowest
Figure 3: Results of different
scenarios 13

14. Comparative
Analysis
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
Box 100 times
reused
(Recycling)
Box 30 times
reused
(Recycling)
Box 10 times
reused
(Recycling)
Single use box
(Recycling)
GWP (kg CO2 eq.)/one use of box
0.00000
0.01000
0.02000
0.03000
0.04000
0.05000
0.06000
0.07000
0.08000
Box 100 times
reused
(Incineration)
Box 30 times
reused
(Incineration)
Box 10 times
reused
(Incineration)
Single use box
(Incineration)
GWP (kg CO2 eq.)/one use of box
Figure 4: Comparative results of
different scenarios using end of life
Recycling.
Figure 5: Comparative results of different
scenarios using end of life Incineration
Figure 6: Relative benefits of 100
times reused box over the single use
box.
4
19
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Benefits
(Recycling)
Benefits
(Incineration)
GWP (kg CO2 eq.)
14

15. Sensitivity Analysis
0.0000
0.0500
0.1000
0.1500
0.2000
0.2500
0.3000
0.3500
Reusablebox
used 1 time
(Incineration)
Reusablebox
used 1 time
(Recycling)
Single use box
(Incineration)
Single use box
(Recycling)
GWP (kg CO2 eq.)
Figure 7: Comparative results of 1 time use of reusable box and
single use box using end of life recycling and incineration options.
Figure 8: Differences in results using renewable energy
sources (EOL recycling and incineration).
Figure 9: Differences in results using 100 single use box
(EOL Recycling). 15
0.00000
0.00050
0.00100
0.00150
0.00200
0.00250
0.00300
0.00350
0.00400
0.00450
Box 100 times
reused(Recycling)
Box 100 times
reused (Recycling)
green
Box 100 times
reused (Incineration)
green
Box 100 times
reused (Incineration)
GWP (kg CO2 eq.)
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
100 single use box
(Recycling)
1 reusable Box reused
100 timea (Recycling)
GWP (kg CO2 eq.)

16. 1. Reusable packaging decreases CO2 emission.
2. 100 times reused box decreased approximately 76% CO2
emission compared to single use box using EoL recycling.
3. 100 times reused box decreased approximately 94.69 % CO2
emissions compared to single use box using EoL incineration.
4. Overall recycling is much better end of life option than incineration for
packaging material but 100% recycling is not possible in practical life.
5. Energy sources and customer behavior influence the final results.
Conclusions
16

17. Kiitos