Significance of the use of non-renewable fossil CED as proxy indicator for screening LCA in the beverage packaging sector

International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 673-682

  Scipioni, Antonio ^a   Niero, Monia ^a   Mazzi, Anna ^a   Manzardo, Alessandro ^a   Piubello, Sara ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Beverage packaging; Cumulative energy demand; Life cycle impact assessment; Proxy indicators; Screening LCA

Indexed keywords

FOSSIL FUEL;

ACIDIFICATION; ARTICLE; BEVERAGE; BIOFUEL PRODUCTION; CLIMATE CHANGE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENERGY CONSERVATION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS; FOOD PACKAGING; FOSSIL CUMULATIVE ENERGY DEMAND; FOSSIL ENERGY; LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT; PARTICULATE MATTER; PHOTOOXIDATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION;

EID: 84878537271     PISSN: 09483349     EISSN: 16147502     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11367-012-0484-x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Bovea MD, Gallardo A (2006) The influence of impact assessment methods on materials selection for eco-design. Mater Design 27:209-215
2. Brendt ER (1982) From technology to net energy analysis: engineers, economists and recurring energy theories of value. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Studies in Energy and the American Economy, Discussion Paper No. 11, MIT-EL 81-065WP, September 1982
3. Consumer Goods Forum (2011) Global Protocol on Packaging Sustainability 2.0, Unpublished document. http://globalpackaging.mycgforum.com/allfiles/GPPS-2. pdf. Accessed 20 January 2012
4. Corepla (2004) Programma specifico di prevenzione 2004. Arti grafiche quadrifoglio, Milano
5. Dreyer LC, Niemann AL, Hauschild MZ (2003) Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99: does it matter which you choose. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:191-200
6. EC-JRC (2011) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context. First edition November 2011. European Commission-Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability: EUR 24571 EN. Luxemburg. Publications Office of the European Union
7. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N (2007) Implementation of life cycle assessment methods. Ecoinvent report No. 3, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf, Switzerland
8. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbreghts, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition. Report I: Characterisation. 6 January 2009. Full report available at http://www.lcia-recipe.net/
9. GreenBlue (2009) Sustainable Packaging Indicators and Metrics Framework, Version 1.0, unpublished report, Charlottesville, VA, US. www.greenblue.org. Accessed 20 January 2012
10. Hannon BM (1972) System energy and recycling: a study of the container industry. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 72-WA-ENER-3
11. Hannon BM (1980) The energy cost of energy. Energy Research Group, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champagne, xerolith, (revised), June 1980
12. Hannon BM (2010) The role of input-output analysis and ecological systems: in the early development of ecological economics - personal perspective. Ann NY Acad Sci 1185:30-38
13. Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Macleod M, Margni M, Vab De Meent D, Rosenbraum R, McKone T (2008) Building a model based on scientific consensus for life cycle impact assessment of chemicals: the search for harmony and parsimony. Environ Sci Technol 42:7032-7037
14. Huijbreghts MAJ, Rombouts LJ, Hellweg S, Frischknecht R, Hendriks AJ, van de Meent D, Ragas AMJ, Reijnders L, Struijs J (2006) Is cumulative fossil energy demand a useful indicator for the environmental performance of products? Environ Sci Technol 40(3):641-648
15. Humbert S, Rossi V, Margni M, Jolliet O, Lerincik Y (2009) Life cycle assessment of two baby food packaging alternatives: glass jars vs. plastic pots. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:95-106
16. Hunt RG, William EF (1996) LCA - how it came about - personal reflections on the origin and the development of LCA in the USA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1(1):4-7
17. Manzardo A, Mazzi A, Levorato B, Niero M, Scipioni A (2011) Single issue assessment VS full life cycle assessment: the case of a monocrystalline PV panel. In: Proceedings of LCM 2011 "Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Management", 28-31 August 2011, Berlin, Germany
18. Mizsey P, Delgado L, Benko T (2009) Comparison of environmental impact and external cost assessment methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:665-675
19. Mourad AL, Garcia EEC, Braz Vilela G, Von Zuben F (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 13:140-146
20. Pant R, Van Hoof G, Schowanek D, Feijtel TCJ, de Koning A, Hauschild M, Penningron DW, Olsen SI, Rosenbaum R (2004) Comparison between three different LCIA methods for aquatic ecotoxicity and a product environmental risk assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:295-306
21. Pasqualino J, Menes M, Castells F (2011) The carbon footprint and energy consumption of beverage packaging selection and disposal. J Food Eng 103:357-365
22. Pizzol M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Thomsen M (2011a) Impacts of "metals" on human health: a comparison between nine different methodologies for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). J Clean Prod 19:646-656
23. Pizzol M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Thomsen M (2011b) Eco-toxicological impact of "metals" on the acquatic and terrestrial ecosystem: a comparison between eight different methodologies for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). J Clean Prod 19:687-698
24. Von Falkenstein E, Detzel A, Wellenreuther F (2009) Meta analysis: LCA studies on beverage cartons and alternative packaging. Final report. IFEU - Institute fur Energie und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
25. Von Falkenstein E, Wellenreuther F, Detzel A (2010) LCA studies comparing beverage cartons and alternative packaging: can overall conclusions be drawn? Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:938-945
26. Xie M, Li L, Qiao Q, Sun Q, Sun T (2011) A comparative study on milk packaging using life cycle assessment: from PA-PE-Al laminate and polyethylene in China. J Clean Prod 19:2100-2106