Life cycle and cost-benefit analysis of industrial packaging material. A full evaluation of the environmental costs 3961466971, 9783961466979

Citation preview

Meinel, David: Life cycle and cost-benefit analysis of industrial packaging material. A full evaluation of the environmental costs, Hamburg, Diplomica Verlag 2019 Buch-ISBN: 978-3-96146-697-9 PDF-eBook-ISBN: 978-3-96146-197-4 Druck/Herstellung: Diplomica Verlag, Hamburg, 2019 Covermotiv: Pixabay.com Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Dies gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Bearbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Die Wiedergabe von Gebrauchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen usw. in diesem Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme, dass solche Namen im Sinne der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei zu betrachten wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften. Die Informationen in diesem Werk wurden mit Sorgfalt erarbeitet. Dennoch können Fehler nicht vollständig ausgeschlossen werden und die Bedey Media GmbH, die Autoren oder Übersetzer übernehmen keine juristische Verantwortung oder irgendeine Haftung für evtl. verbliebene fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen. Alle Rechte vorbehalten © Diplomica Verlag, Imprint der Bedey Media GmbH Hermannstal 119k, 22119 Hamburg http://www.diplomica-verlag.de, Hamburg 2019 Printed in Germany

This book is devoted to my parents who have supported me through everything, so I’m finally able to reach this point. Growing surrounded by wisdom, experiences and forthrightness. Going through the world with open eyes, being educated by others and sharing knowledge.

Abstract Individuals are suffering respiratory problems, cancer and allergies which are associated with pollution from manufacturing processes. Using 50% more resources than the earth can regenerate in one year leads to tremendous loss of intact eco-systems, biodiversity and liveable land. Industrial packaging highly contributes to this trend with disposable packaging material and globally connected supply chain networks. A looped packaging system can enable resource efficiency, decrease costs and waste and overcome human and environmental harm. Additionally, the supply chain can be made more efficient enabling Industry 4.0 with a smart container system. In this regard not only a circular, but also a mathematical model has been developed to evaluate industrial packaging materials in accordance with their environmental costs. The examined materials are first analysed in their life cycle using a cradle-to-gate approach. In a further evaluation the developed circular model is transformed in a mathematical model comparing the materials with their associated total costs and benefits, including waste management policies, pollution and environmental costs. Keywords: Industrial Packaging Material, Waste Management, Circular Economy, ClosedLoop Supply Chains, Life Cycle Analysis, Cost-Benefit-Analysis, Environmental Costs, Resource Efficiency

Individuen leiden unter Atemwegsproblemen, Krebs und Allergien, die mit Umweltverschmutzung durch Produktionsprozesse einhergehen. Ein Verbrauch von 50% mehr Ressourcen pro Jahr als die Erde regenerieren kann, führt zu einem enormen Verlust an intakten Ökosystemen, Biodiversität und lebenswerten Landschaften. Industrielles Verpackungsmaterial trägt zu diesem Trend mit Einwegverpackungen und globalen verknüpften Wertschöpfungsketten bei. Ein kreisförmiges Verpackungssystem kann zu Ressourceneffizienz, geringeren Kosten und Abfall, sowie Umweltproblemen und menschlichen Leid führen. Zusätzlich kann die Wertschöpfungskette effizienter gestaltet werden, mit der Etablierung von Industrie 4.0 durch ein intelligentes Containerkonzept. Deshalb wurde nicht nur ein zirkuläres, sondern auch ein mathematisches Modell entwickelt, welches industrielles Verpackungsmaterial nach Umweltkosten bewertet. Zuerst werden die Verpackungsmaterialien in einer Lebenszyklusanalyse vom Abbau bis zum fertigen Produkt analysiert. Später wird das zirkuläre Modell in ein mathema-

tisches Modell transformiert, wobei hier die Materialien nach totalen Kosten und Nutzen, welche Abfallmanagementstrategien und Umweltverschmutzungskosten inkludieren, evaluiert. Schlüsselwörter: Industrielle Verpackungsmaterialen, Müllmanagement, Kreislaufwirtschaft, geschlossene Wertschöpfungskette, Lebenszyklusanalyse, Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse, Umweltkosten, Ressourceneffizienz

Table of Contents List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... 11 List of Tables........................................................................................................................... 13 List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. 14 Preface ..................................................................................................................................... 15 1.) Introduction..................................................................................................................... 16 1.1.) Problem Formulation .................................................................................................. 18 1.2.) Objective ..................................................................................................................... 23 1.3.) Methodology ............................................................................................................... 26 2.) Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 29 3.) Circular Economy ........................................................................................................... 33 3.1.) Closed-Loop Supply Chain ......................................................................................... 36 3.2.) Circular Model ............................................................................................................ 37 3.2.1.) Small Load Carrier .............................................................................................. 41 4.) Packaging Material ......................................................................................................... 43 4.1.) Plastics......................................................................................................................... 46 5.) Bio-based Packaging Material ....................................................................................... 49 5.1.) Bioplastics ................................................................................................................... 50 6.) Waste Management ........................................................................................................ 52 6.1.) Recycling..................................................................................................................... 52 6.2.) Incineration ................................................................................................................. 54 6.3.) Landfilling ................................................................................................................... 55 6.4.) Biodegradation ............................................................................................................ 56 6.5.) Results ......................................................................................................................... 57 7.) Life Cycle Analysis ......................................................................................................... 58 7.1.) Definition .................................................................................................................... 58 7.1.2.) Goal and Scope.......................................................................................................... 60 7.1.3.) Life Cycle Inventory ............................................................................................ 61 7.1.4.) Life Cycle Impact Assessment ............................................................................ 63 7.2.) Polyethylene ................................................................................................................ 66 7.3.) Polypropylene ............................................................................................................. 72

7.4.) Corrugated Paper......................................................................................................... 75 7.5.) Bio-based Polyethylene ............................................................................................... 79 7.6.) Bio-based Polypropylene ............................................................................................ 83 7.7.) Evaluation and interpretation ...................................................................................... 85 8.) Cost-Benefit Analysis...................................................................................................... 94 8.1.) Model .......................................................................................................................... 96 8.2.) Notation ..................................................................................................................... 100 8.3.) Mathematical Formulation ........................................................................................ 101 8.4.) Application ................................................................................................................. 104 8.5.) Results ....................................................................................................................... 109 9.) Implications ................................................................................................................... 113 10.) Further Research .......................................................................................................... 115 Appendix 1 .......................................................................................................................... 117 Appendix 2 .......................................................................................................................... 118 Appendix 3 .......................................................................................................................... 119 References .......................................................................................................................... 121

List of Figures Figure 1

Roadmap of the book ............................................................................................ 17

Figure 2

Overview of the underlying assumption ............................................................... 24

Figure 3

Comparison of Disposable and Reusable Packaging Material in the Supply Chain ............................................................................................... 25

Figure 4

Key Considerations of Disposable and Reusable Packaging Materials ................ 25

Figure 5

Circular Model for Packaging Material................................................................. 35

Figure 6

Overview of a Closed-Loop Supply Chain ........................................................... 36

Figure 7

Linear Supply Chain with Disposable Packaging Material................................... 38

Figure 8

Circular System with Reusable Packaging Material ............................................. 39

Figure 9

Waste Pyramid in Accordance with EU Framework Directive ........................... 52

Figure 10 Incineration Plant .................................................................................................. 54 Figure 11 Landfilling Site ...................................................................................................... 55 Figure 12 Triangle of Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................................ 59 Figure 13 Life Cycle Inventory of Packaging Material ......................................................... 63 Figure 14 Polyethylene Production........................................................................................ 66 Figure 15 Life cycle Inventory of Polyethylene .................................................................... 67 Figure 16 HDPE Production .................................................................................................. 68 Figure 17 LDPE Production with High-Pressure Polymerisation ......................................... 69 Figure 18 LLDPE Production with Solution Phase ............................................................... 70 Figure 19 Production of Polypropylene ................................................................................. 73 Figure 20 Life Cycle Inventory of Polypropylene ................................................................. 74 Figure 21 Production of Corrugated Paper ............................................................................ 76 Figure 22 Life Cycle Inventory of Corrugated Board ........................................................... 77 Figure 23 Production of Bio-based Polyethylene .................................................................. 80 Figure 24 Life Cycle Inventory of Bio-based Polyethylene .................................................. 81 Figure 25 Production Flow of Bio-based Polypropylene ...................................................... 83 Figure 26 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis of Bio-based Polypropylene................................. 84 Figure 27 Abiotic Depletion Potential Overview .................................................................. 85 Figure 28 Acidification Potential Overview .......................................................................... 86 Figure 29 Biological Oxygen Demand Overview ................................................................. 86 Figure 30 Chemical Oxygen Demand Overview ................................................................... 87

11

Figure 31 Eutrophication Potential Overview ....................................................................... 87 Figure 32 Energy Overview................................................................................................... 88 Figure 33 Global Warming Potential100 Overview ................................................................ 88 Figure 34 Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential Overview ............................................. 89 Figure 35 Total Organic Carbon Overview ........................................................................... 90 Figure 36 Total Particulate Matter Overview ........................................................................ 90 Figure 37 Connection between the LCA and CBA ............................................................... 95 Figure 38 Cycle of Reusable and Non-reusable Packaging Material .................................... 98 Figure 39 Production Statistic of Small Load Carrier 1992-2011 ....................................... 117 Figure 40 Characteristics of Examined Materials................................................................ 118 Figure 41 Complete Overview of Environmental Impact Categories of Materials ............. 120

12

List of Tables Table 1 Real Time Measures of Repackaging Processes ...................................................... 42 Table 2 Comparison between Disposable and Reusable Packaging Material....................... 45 Table 3 Summary of Waste Management Technologies with Application of Materials ...... 57 Table 4 Classification of Impact Categories ......................................................................... 65 Table 5 Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Polyethylene ....................................................... 71 Table 6 Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Polypropylene .................................................... 74 Table 7 Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Corrugated Paper ............................................... 78 Table 8 Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Bio-based Polyethylene ..................................... 82 Table 9 Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Bio-based Polypropylene ................................... 84 Table 10 Summary of Environmental Impact Categories ....................................................... 91 Table 11 Overview of LCIA ................................................................................................... 91 Table 12 Notation .................................................................................................................. 100 Table 13 Product Category .................................................................................................... 105 Table 14 Environmental Impact Costs for Transport ............................................................ 105 Table 15 State-of-the art Costs .............................................................................................. 106 Table 16 Material Costs ........................................................................................................ 106 Table 17 Ratios of End-of-Life Treatment ............................................................................ 106 Table 18 GHG Emissions through Different Disposal Strategies (Garrain et al. 2007, 8) ... 107 Table 19 Pollution Costs (UNEP 2017, II; Morlet et al. 2016, 29) ....................................... 107 Table 20 Weighted Environmental Impact Categories ......................................................... 108 Table 21 Net Calorific Values for Incineration (World Energy Council 2016, 8) ................ 108 Table 22 Total Costs ............................................................................................................. 109 Table 23 Total Benefits ......................................................................................................... 110 Table 24 Benefit-Cost Ratio .................................................................................................. 111 Table 25 Net Benefit-Cost Ratio ........................................................................................... 111

13

List of Abbreviations Abbreviation Term ADP Abiotic Depletion Potential AGV Automatic Guided Vehicle

Abbreviation LDPE LCA

AP

LLDPE

BDP BOD BPA BPE BPP CAGR CE

Acidification Potential Bio-derived Plastic Biological Organic Demand Bisphenol A Bio-based Polyethylene Bio-based Polypropylene Compound Annual Growth Rate Circular Economy

CFC CH4 CLSC CO2 COD CR EP EPA EPS eq. ESD EU FCC FFDP FG GCV GDP GHG GWP100 HDPE IG IoT IPCC KLT

14

LUC MJ MRF MSW NCV NOx ODP OECD

Chlorofluorocarbons Methane Closed-Loop Supply Chain Carbon Dioxide Chemical Organic Demand Cycle Rate Eutrophication Potential Environmental Protection Agency Expendable Polystyrene Equivalent Electronic Static Discharge European Union Fluid Catalytic Cracking Fossil Fuel-Derived Plastic Finished Good Gross Calorific Value Gross Domestic Product Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential100 High-Density Polyethylene Incoming Good

P PE PET PHA PLA PM PM 10 POCP POPs PP pre-FG PS Sb SC SCM SLC SOx TOC TPM TPS

VDA Internet of Things International Panel on Climate VOC Change Kleinladungsträger/Small WTF Load Carrier

Term Low-Density Polyethylene Life Cycle Analysis Linear Low-Density Polyethylene Land Use Change Megajoule Material Recovery Facility Municipal Solid Waste Net Calorific Value Nitrogen Oxides Ozone Depletion Potential Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Phosphorous Polyethylene Polyethylene Terephthalate Polyhydroxyalkanoate Polylactic Acid Packaging Material Particulate Matter Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential Persistent Organic Pollutants Polypropylene Pre-Finished Good Polystyrene Stibium Supply Chain Supply Chain Management Small Load Carrier Sulphur Oxides Total Organic Compound Total Particulate Matter Thermoplastic Starch Verband Deutscher Automobilindustrie Volatile Organic Compound Waste Treatment Facility

Preface The following book is research-intensive, which contributes to a more efficient usage of packaging material, whilst at the same time evaluating the environmental and human damage associated with it. Uncovering hidden costs, this paper is best suited for policy makers and fits in the scheme of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals. It utilises a holistic approach, giving the reader a profound understanding of industrial packaging material and its substitutes, thus enabling a new thinking about usage of resources, time, costs and environmental and human harm associated with PM. It explains the ways selected materials are manufactured in a detailed way, and includes types of waste management. Hereby a model is introduced which can establish resource efficiency and mitigate energy consumption and pollution rates. To the authors knowledge climate change caused by humanity and the associated plethora of issues are currently the biggest challenge humanity is facing. This global threat to humankind has been created by its endless hunger for resources, the linear production of goods, and the accompanying emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). The creation of GHG emissions and waste streams can lead to a total collapse of our global eco-system, from air, to waterways, lakes and oceans, forests and soils. In this regard, it should be common sense among humans that less singular materials are used and disposed. One solution to this problem could be the Circular Economy, which leads to the reusability of products. Scientists on all levels should focus on the topic of resource efficiency and circularity, conducting crucial research to mitigate climate change and finding solutions against the possible destruction of the global ecosystem. We should always bear in mind that humanity is adapted to the planet’s current conditions, and is not prepared to survive in any other conditions. Distinguished reader, please recognize that this is a piece of science, and doesn’t attempt to address climate change or global warming, aside from the economic and ecological examination of materials in the field of industrial packaging.

15

1.)

Introduction

Nearly every human is currently dealing with packaging material (PM) on a daily basis products are purchased and unpacked and, the wrapping is thrown away. However, the concept of packaging itself is much older and disposability wasn’t always common sense. The disposability of PM began when humans started to economize, as goods were being traded and the production exceeded the daily amount of consumption (Koffler 1990, 14). Wood is, besides clay, one of the oldest packaging materials used by humanity, as the barrel was invented 2,000 years ago. Already in the medieval ages, standardized wooden transport boxes were used. Acid, milk, and other goods were shipped in these boxes until the 19th Century. Reusability and biodegradability were core elements of early packaging materials as only a limited number of boxes and resources were available. Even the Austrian post was using reusable and collapsible delivery boxes which were invented in 1880 (Koffler 1990, 16). Along with rising populations and consumption growth, weight became one of the most pressing economic concerns. With the development of lighter materials out of cellulose derivatives such as carton and synthetics in the 21st Century, the bottleneck of weight was solved. Nevertheless, whilst the weight of packaging material has been decreased on the one hand, on the other, the factors of reusability and biodegradability have been lost and derived into streams of singularity and waste. The new era of disposable packaging materials, higher consumption patterns and the increased number of dissimilar materials leads to more waste streams, GHG emissions, the increased use of resources, costs and transport, and a plethora of environmental issues. Put simply, the substation of disposable packaging material towards reusable ones can lead to a reduction of 32% of CO2 emissions (Hekkert et al. 2000, 34). This book focuses on the industrial sector, as most current research focuses on the retail industry in regard to packaging material, although there is growing interest in environmental programmes related to industrial packaging (Verghese &Lewis 2007, 4381). Hence, a high amount of research to be conducted in this field is necessary. Additionally, the feasibility of creating circularity in the industrial supply chain (SC) is higher than in the consumer sector, where materials aren’t standardized, and additional incentives are needed (Feess-Dörr et al. 1991, 124ff.). The underlying book examines industrial packaging materials based on a holistic view and compares the varied materials based on a cost-benefit and life cycle approach.

16

Starting with a collection of the problems created by disposable packaging, the reader gains a profound understanding into why resource efficiency in terms of costs, GHG emissions and its associated environmental damage is necessary, and what the scope of this publication is. With the introduction and explanation of closed-loop supply chains (CLSCs) and the concept of circularity, one of the possibilities on how to solve singularity and overcome the madness of wasting the planet is given. Here, with a possible draft of a smart container system the macro level is being outlined. The methodology introduces the approach of the book and the literature review reflects not only the state-of-the-art of research in this very niche area, but also lists suitable data bases for Life Cycle Analysis (LCA). An overview of existing packaging materials guides the reader into the field of industrial packaging materials and into the micro level of analysing suitable materials. This book focuses on synthetics, such as the family of Polyolefins, as they are not only the most used plastics but are also used frequently as industrial packaging materials (Geyer et al. 2017; PlasticsEurope 2016,20). Furthermore, biodegradable materials such as corrugated paper, the second most used packaging material (SmithersPira 2016) and biobased polymers are examined. Here, the production processes are outlined, and the demand growth is forecasted. In the second step the lifecycles of the respective materials are evaluated and compared, regarding environmental impact categories. Figure one gives an overview of the underlying structure of the book.

Figure 1 Roadmap of this book

In the third step a cost-benefit analysis is modelled and applied with the previously introduced materials. Here, waste management policies are modelled and evaluated due to their total

17

costs, benefits and feasibility. Finally, the publication is rounded up with a conclusion of key factors and implications as well as further research and remarks.

1.1.) Problem Formulation As globalization has made the world globally connected, the problem formulation is conducted utilising a holistic approach in order to address the issue of missing resource efficiency associated with pollution, waste and GHG emissions. This doesn’t account for industrial packaging material only, but is an overall eye opener regarding singularity and its ongoing damage. The global population is growing. In 2017 the population consisted of 7.5 billion people (Worldometer, 2017), an increase from 2.5 billion people in 1950. It is estimated that by 2050 around 9.8 billion people will populate our planet (UNO, 2015), a growth rate of nearly 400% in just 100 years. Additionally, it is estimated that the middle class will double by 2030 to 5 billion people (Ellen MacArthur 2015, 3). Economic growth and affluence is coupled with a higher rate of production, consumption and the associated generation of waste (Dyckhoff et al. 2004, 15; Hoornweg & Bhuda-Tata 2012, 1), which goes hand in hand with an increase of produced and discarded packaging material. This will lead to more GHG emissions and waste affecting the health of humans and both terrestrial- and sea life if not treated correctly (Hekkert et al. 2001, 56). In western Europe alone, packaging accounts approximately for 3% of the GHG emissions, 14% of material-related GHG emissions, and 40% of municipal waste (Hekkert et al. 2000, 33; Hekkert et al. 2001, 71). Industrial packaging accounts globally for 39% of the overall produced packaging (Page 2017, 7) and to 1% of the global CO2 emissions (Hekkert et al. 1999, 24). This current trend of singularity is unsustainable, as each year 50 percent more resources are consumed than our planet can regenerate (Global Footprint Network 2017). Globally, only 5.5 percent of primary materials used before 2015 have been reused, recycled, repaired, remade or reduced (Stuchtey 2016, 3). Therefore, the tremendous amount of land degradation, water and air pollution, forest loss, and the extinction of animals is being accelerated (UNEP 2011, 7), of which the singularity of packaging material plays a significant role. The disposability of industrial packaging is even worse as it only serves to protect its contents from damage or particle contamination, and is used for an even shorter time period than in business to

consumer cycles. Additionally, there are no additional marketing effects or value added.

18

Packaging materials can either be reused, recycled or incinerated, however most of the packaging waste is still landfilled, leading to a shift of global waste streams. In total, the waste variety and composition of packaging materials leads to an unsustainable path and a plethora of issues, including the growth of municipal solid waste (MSW), GHG emissions and environmental and human pollution. GHG Emissions GHGs are one of the key issues of our current century and are emitted by the burning of fossil fuels used in production of industrial packaging material (PM). Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a key GHG emitted through the production, transport and incineration of packaging material. GHGs which aren’t transformed into organic compounds enter the atmosphere, causing the greenhouse effect which is directly related to climate change (Voevedine & Krzan 2013, 2). Climate change leads to a plethora of threats to our planet, such as the extinction of species, extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and the melting of glaciers (Greene 2014, 15ff.). The plastic industry alone emits 204 million tonnes of CO2 annually, compared to the 31 billion tonnes of CO2 released globally (Liptow&Tillman 2012, 420). Pollution is another side effect of the manufacturing and disposal processes which has drastic effects on the health of both the planet and humans, for example through air pollution which causes 6.5 million people to die prematurely every year (UNEP 2017, III). Municipal Solid Waste Waste as an imprint of humans is found in every corner of the planet, especially ocean habitats, with the ocean surface, water columns and islands bearing most of its impact (Gregory 1999, 604; Greene 2014, 25). Currently, 1.3 billion tonnes of MSW are generated annually, a figure which is predicted to increase to 2.2 billion tonnes in 2025 (Hoornweg & Bhuda-Tata 2012, 9). The costs of MSW are the biggest incurred by municipalities and globally amount to $205.4 billion, which is expected to increase to $375.5 billion in 2025 (Hoornweg & BhudaTata 2012, 9). MSW develops faster than any other environmental pollutant, and is phenomenon associated with urban and wealthy populations as people in cities produce double the amount of waste as rural residents (Hoornweg & Bhuda-Tata 2012, 1). The OECD countries alone produce 44% of the global MSW, although the collection rates in less affluent countries are accountable for only 46 to 65% of MSW, compared to 98% in industrial countries (Hoornweg & Bhuda-Tata 2012, 15). Thus, a significant amount of waste in less affluent countries can be found in the environment. The composition of MSW also notably changes in wealthy societies from organic waste towards packaging and electronic waste (Hornweg et al. 19

2013, 3). As an example, plastics in MSW between 1960 and 2005 have increased from 1% to 10% in middle-and high-income countries (Geyer et al. 2017, 1). Leakages associated with improper waste management lead to the pollution of water with heavy metals, endocrine substances and organic compounds (UNEP 2017, 10), and to the plethora of key problems mentioned below. Especially in developing countries, MSW is environmentally landfilled and incinerated, leading to uncontrollable health and pollution risks (Davis & Song 2006, 152). Plastics Plastics, a so called “wonder material”, are the prime example of linearity because of their short life cycle and their disposal through incineration or landfilling, rather than being reused or recycled. On the one hand plastic is a cheap material with a high mouldability and numerous characteristics and applications, but on the other hand it is the main driver of an abundance of problems, related to waste, GHG emissions and environmental threats (Hopewell et al. 2009, 2115). As plastics take up the largest share in the field of packaging (Geyer et al. 2017, 1) they are continuously contributing to the growth of GHG emissions. They consume 4% of the global oil and gas production as well as the same amount for cumulative energy usage (Hopewell et al. 2009, 2115). If the current production growth of plastics continues, it is predicted that they will consume 20% of global gas and oil production and contribute to 15% of global GHG emissions by 2025 (Morlet et al. 2016, 17). As an example, in 2012 the total process of plastic production, including transport contributed to 390 million tonnes of CO2, or 1% of the total global share (Morlet et al. 2016, 29). In terms of MSW, 50% of plastic waste cumulates from packaging material (Hopewell et al. 2009, 2116; Wallace 2017). Regarding their short life cycle in PM market, 95% of their material value is lost to the economy which is estimated to amount to $80-120 billion annually (Morlet et al. 2016, 24). In total 6.3 billion tonnes of plastic waste have been created since the 1950s, with 4.9 billion tonnes of this plastic waste having been landfilled or stranded in the environment, and just 9% or 0.56 billion tonnes having been recycled, and 12% incinerated (Wallace 2017; Geyer et al. 2017, 3; Garms 2017). Overall, 32% of plastic PM escapes the collection systems, and annually eight million tonnes enter the ocean (Morlet et al. 2016, 17). Due to their high volume to weight ratio and non-degradability landfill depletion takes place (Ren 2003, 27). Most often plastic can only be permanently eliminated by thermal treatment as only pure plastics can be recycled. However, through incineration hazardous substances such as dioxins or polychlorin-

20

ated biphenyls and furans may be released into the atmosphere (Hopewell et al. 2008, 2117), thus filter systems at incineration plants are needed (Hopewell et al. 2008, 2117). Plastic Pollution Marine litter harms terrestrial and marine life through entanglement, ingestion and the reduction of fertility (Gregory 1999, 603), and 75% of marine litter is comprised of plastics (Greene 2014, 23; UNEP 2017, 13). Furthermore, animals get tangled up in lost fishing ropes, so called ghost nets and discarded six pack rings, resulting in injury and death (Gregory 2009, 2014). Seabirds also feed the debris to their offspring, leading to starvation of the chicks (Greene 2014, 27). Currently there are more than 150 million tons of plastic in the oceans, six times the total amount of plankton (Lorenzen 2013; Morlet et al. 2016, 17). Moreover, it is estimated that each day more than 8 million marine debris items consisting of synthetics enter the ocean. If the current trend continues, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans by 2050 (Gregory 2009, 2013; World Economic Forum 2016). Disposed plastic lasts for centuries in the environment and can be found in the most remote areas of our planet, such as ocean trenches and arctic areas where no human settlement exists. Winds and water currents push the litter towards these spots (Gregory 1999, 606; Gregory 2009, 2013). As an example the island Henderson, which is 5000 km away from any settlement, bears 33.7 billion plastic parts (Schrot & Korn 2017, 10). The main sources of marine litter are 80% land based and 20% from vessels and sea-based plants (UNEP 2017, 13). After floating, marine debris sinks to the ground leading to anoxia and hypoxia, as well as a change in the seabed (Gregory 2009, 2017) and the shrivelling of coral reefs and aquatic habits (Sheavly &Register 2007, 303). Additionally, as synthetics have similar properties to natural fats they act like a sponge, absorbing contaminants such as persistent organic pollutants (POPs), dioxins and heavy metals (Greene 2014, 29; Kershaw 2016, 31). POPs are sourced from pesticides, herbicides and insecticides (Greene 2014, 30). These after-use externalities of plastic PM cause damage not only to wildlife but also to the fishery industry and hydropower plants, and irritate navigation (Ren 2003, 27). Leakages into the natural environment happen not only during plastic PM disposal, but also during every stage of manufacturing (Kershaw 2016, 32). Furthermore, plastic PM waste also poses a problem to the aesthetics of nature, destroying the human dream of untouched, idyllic islands and crystal-clear waters, leading to clean up campaigns to preserve tourism (Gregory 1999, 608).

21

However, the most pressing issue associated with plastic PM pollution is that although plastics degrade into smaller pieces, the polymers don’t fully degrade, instead becoming resins or so called microplastics (Hopewell et al. 2009, 2116; Geyer et al. 2017, 3). Microplastics harm marine invertebrates by entering their food chain as plastic pellets look like fish eggs or plankton (Sheavly &Register 2007, 303; UNEP 2017, 15). Nano microplastics cross both the cell membranes and the blood-brain barrier of fish, resulting in tissue damage and behavioural changes (UNEP 2017, 15). Moreover, microplastics are also used for various industrial or consumer purposes including the cleaning of buildings and ships, and for injection moulding and 3D printing. Microplastics can also be found in cleaning and cosmetic products (Kerhaw 2016, 27). Humans absorb microplastics through their skin, and consume it in fish, sea-food, honey (Jonas 2017) and liquids. In nearly 83% of global drinking water reserves microplastics have been found (Jonas 2017), and plastic residues in soil have significantly decreased yields (Ren 2003, 27). Most often it is not the ingestion of synthetics which results in the damage to human health, but instead it is their associated additives, which provide synthetics with their numerous characteristics (Morlet et al. 2016, 79). Degrading additives can be released into natural habitats and absorbed by wildlife and humans (Kershaw 2016, 28). Damaging additives of plastics can be clustered into two main materials: softeners, so called phthalates, and hardeners, Bisphenol A (BPA). BPA is found in most rigid plastics and is especially associated with a plethora of harms, functioning as a synthetic oestrogen (Kershaw 2016, 28). The endocrine substance is liposoluble and can be found in the blood and urine of more than 90% of the people in the industrialised world (Lorenzen 2013). Phthalates lead to asthma, allergies, cancer and the disruption of brain activities (Jonas 2017; Morlet et al. 2016, 79). All in all, the absorption and consumption of microplastics is associated with cancer, obesity, fertility reduction, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and changes in genotypes (Lorenzen 2013), as well as endocrine disruption, mutagenicity, and carcinogenicity (Greene 2014, 30). Lastly, core environmental issues such as air pollution, the loss of biodiversity and environmental harm are externalities for manufactures (Chen et al. 1994, 503). Companies neglect this topic, although it could enable a resource and cost-efficient supply chain if addressed in the total costs. Therefore, the development of a circular economic system with reusable packaging materials is crucial, owing to the urgency of resource scarcity, environmental threats, 22

pollution and health. An efficient waste management system and the 6Rs are key pillars to this concept as well as enabling a Circular Economy (CE). In conclusion, the current linear system is resource inefficient and leads to unnecessary waste, which results in further environmental and human damage and degradation, health issues and costs. A circular model in combination with reusable and degradable packaging materials can be a solution.

1.2.) Objective The problem formulation gave an overview of our current unsustainable linear economic model. Using more resources than the earth can generate leads to a depletion on both the Kuznets curve and the economy. Discarding waste in a manner in which it migrates into the environment leads to unforeseeable middle- and long-term costs, bearing in mind that pollution doesn’t only harm the ecosystem but also humanity. Uncovering these hidden costs associated with products and evaluating them based on their cost-benefit is one of the main goals of this publication. Furthermore, production of PM varies between 20 MJ/kg for corrugated paper to 40MJ/kg for plastics (Hekkert et al. 1999, 1), which constitutes a waste of energy if PMs are not being reused. It is also stated that ensuring material efficiency is more cost effective than efficiency changes in production or energy (Hekkert et al. 2001, 71). Therefore, there is an urgent need to ensure resource efficiency in terms of environmental sustainability and a new economic model to solve the aforementioned issues. My thesis is that it is more useful in industry-to-industry processes to use reusable packaging material which is degradable - a renunciation of linearity through circularity should be performed. On the one hand, with the establishment of a circular model a lot of issues can be overcome, such as the waste of resources and energy, GHG emissions, and environmental and human pollution, and on the other hand costs can be saved and the SC improved. Therefore, a CLSC model with reusable packaging containers has been developed, which will be further elaborated below. This integrative and holistic system can be a contributor to Industry 4.0 and ease the process of repackaging, improving the after use of PM and avoiding leakages into the environment.

23

Figure 2 Overview of the underlying book

The assumption is that currently PM in the SC is used only once before it is discarded. With the new proposed model this singularity is overcome by the substitution of single-use PM with reusable PM. Research performed by Hekkert et al. (1999) shows that resource efficiency and reusable PM leads to tremendous savings in GHG emissions and waste (Hekkert et al. 1999, 1). Furthermore, a circular model regarding industrial PM supports this trend, as stated by Morlet et al. (2016). In addition, as leakages can’t be avoided (Morlet et al. 2016, 34) biodegradable plastics are necessary to stop environmental pollution and decouple economic growth from finite resources. Figure three displays the assumption of a current SC where singular use PM is being used and should be substituted with reusable PM. The red line indicates the framework of the SC which is being examined in this book.

24

Figure 3 Comparison of Disposable and Reusable Packaging Material in the Supply Chain

Key issues which need to be considered in regard to disposable and reusable packaging materials, as well as with biodegradability, are the factors of weight and cycle rates. Another key issue which needs to be considered is that bio-based products require feedstocks which could increase food prices, the number of undernourished people, and also result in the loss of biodiversity and higher GHG emissions due to land loss (Kershaw 2016, 25). Currently 795 million people, or about 10% of the global population, are undernourished (FAO 2015, 8).

Figure 4 Key Considerations of Disposable and Reusable Packaging Materials

25

Moreover, growing interest is currently dedicated to the 6Rs of: reduce, redesign, remove, reuse, recycle and recover, not only by consumers in terms of their environmental responsibility and in response to regulations imparted by governments, but also by producers themselves as commercial and other valuable opportunities can be found (Kroon & Vrijens 1994, 56). Returnable packaging systems are used in the automotive industry by Ford, GM, Toyota, VW, Mercedes, BMW, and are also used by John Deere & Co, IBM, Herrman Miller Inc. and others who have made substantial savings through their use (Kroon & Vrijens 1994, 58). In summary, the purpose of this book is to model a CLSC on the macro level with returnable containers as reusable packaging materials, serving to bypass the linearity of industries, to establish a resource efficient SC and overcome the issues of overproduction, -consumption and waste. It still remains to be seen if a circular model is more cost and resource efficient than a linear model, and if bio-based packaging materials are indeed more environmentally friendly than their synthetic counterparts whilst having the same characteristics as non-bio-based packaging materials.

1.3.) Methodology The following book is research-intensive, combining the two methodologies of life cycle with cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in order to quantify externality costs of products and waste treatment facilities. In the first step the concept of circularity is elaborated on, and a circular model is developed. Then, leaving the macro level different types of packaging materials are being examined along with their associated options for waste management treatment. The explanation is crucial for the comparison of the examined materials and the application of the cost-benefit analysis. The approach developing a model on a macro scale has been conducted to show the feasibility of circularity and the renunciation of linearity. Furthermore, the model sets up a smart packaging container system with the establishment of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology in combination with KLTs. The cycle rate of KLTs has been calculated upon the production numbers of the Verband Deutscher Automobilindustrie (VDA).

26

The circular model hasn’t been yet applied to existing SCs and is based on my personal theoretical comprehension. Definitions of CLSC and CE give the reader a profound understanding of the terms and their connections. On the micro level, materials for this concept are elaborated on with respect to the issues in the problem formulation. Tertiary packaging is chosen as it comprises less composites and varied materials, and is utilised by a similar range of consumers which makes collection, reusing and recycling easier (Davis & Song 2006, 148). According to the problem formulation and state-of-the art statistics, the perception of the research material is determined. Synthetics and corrugated paper are the most used industrial packaging materials (PlasticsEurope 2016, 20) and are thus examined in this book. The synthetic materials focused on are those which are most frequently used as synthetic industrial packaging materials - HDPE, LDPE, LLDPE, and PP (SmithersPira 2016; PlasticsEurope 2016, 20, Geyer et al. 2017). Additionally, these synthetic industrial PM have major environmental and human impacts. Moreover, the most frequently used PM in the industrial sector are further extended with bio-based materials such as bio-based Polyethylene and bio-based Polypropylene, as they have promising characteristics and could decrease environmental impacts due to litter. Metal, wood, and glass are excluded from the analysis as they don’t provide the necessary characteristics of either weight or durability to be economic in industry-to-industry processes. In the next step, the concept of life cycle analysis (LCA) is explained, evaluated and compared between the respective materials, in terms of the environmental impact categories which follow in this publication: abiotic depletion, acidification, biological organic demand, chemical organic demand, eutrophication, global warming, photochemical ozone creation, total particular matter and total organic compound. In this regard, the categories of air and water pollution as well as associated human damage and global warming are covered. The LCAs are performed in accordance with ISO 14040-44. LCA data relies on existing studies, papers and data banks such as Ecoinvent, TRACI and GaBI. The LCAs are conducted on a cradle-to-gate framework and don’t comprise the use phase, as the materials are examined in their pure form and not as a product. Additionally, the use phase often varies between the endusers. In the final step, the mathematical model quantifies the previously developed circular model. It evaluates the distinctive materials in terms of their total costs and benefits and includes the

27

externalities of the lifecycle analysis. Moreover, the materials are further elaborated according to different waste management policies. The performed application shows the best suited material for the disposal strategies and general feasibility of its use. Additionally, as time is a crucial economical factor in the SC, three plants in Asia have been chosen and the respective repackaging times have been measured for both incoming and outgoing goods. These time savings and measurements are also included in the application of the model. Finally, the results are presented and the research and concepts which haven’t been included in the present book are introduced. In summary, the model will enable the following benefits: •

Easing the SC process,

•

Enabling a CE/CLSC,

•

Saving of both costs and time.

By finding the right materials and comparing them through LCA and CBA the following improvements will be uncovered:

28

•

Less negative externalities (waste, GHG emissions, pollution),

•

Resource and energy efficiency,

•

Saving of both costs and time,

•

Decoupling economic growths from finite resources,

•

Examination of waste management policies.

2.)

Literature Review

In this publication, a profound and intensive research has been conducted in the field of industrial packaging materials, CE and CLSCs. A bottleneck was finding the right figures for the quantification of the environmental impact categories with respect to the examined materials. This has been overcome with the research and evaluation of LCAs. Other quantification issues have been associated with the current production numbers, the usages and disposal of the materials with respect to industrial packaging, the social costs in terms of pollution, and the associated environmental degradation and damage to humans associated with pollution. Latest reports of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and data from automotive industry plants support this analysis. Bibliography SmithersPira is the main organization publishing reports, forecasts and statistics related to packaging material. PlasticsEurope is the association of plastics manufacturers in Europe and provides an overview of LCAs of different synthetic materials. The global industrial process and impact database GaBi is a software with the most life cycle data inventory (LCI) datasets of materials, including water and land use (GaBi 2018). Other useful banks are the European Reference Life Cycle Database (ELCD 2018) for transport, energy and waste management, or Ecoinvent which provides a profound overview of LCIs of various materials (Ecoinvent, 2018). The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other Environmental Impacts (TRACI, 2018) is a data bank from the US Environmental Protection Agency, providing information related to the environmental impacts of chemicals. Pollution Literature related to marine litter and its associated risks, especially focusing on plastics, are numerous. The Marine Plastics Debris and Microplastics report by UNEP (Kershaw 2016) gives an extensive overview of the matter. Sheavly & Register (2007) focus on this topic as well. Gregory (1999; 2009) elaborates the harms of marine debris for wild- and sea life, showing that it is a long- recognized problem (Gregory 2009, 2013). Already in the 1970s observations made on the remote coasts of New Zealand found abundant plastic pellets (Gregory 2009, 2016). Further extensive reviews about waste and pollution are being conducted by UNEP and the Worldbank (UNEP 2017; Hoornweg & Bhuda-Tata 2012, 29).

29

Circular Econonmy A broad series of publications have been written by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation for CE. Morlet et al. (2016) create a new plastic economy, a model enhancing effectiveness and circularity for PM. Govindan et al. (2015) give an extensive overview of the research literature of reverse logistics and CLSC. According to them, research opportunities lie in the field of mutual interrelations and forward and reverse SCs, and there is a great need to build a comprehensive view of both forward and reverse SCs (Govindan et al. 2015, 615). Steinhilper (1998) explains the process and utility of remanufacturing. Dyckhoff et al. (2004) combines CLSCs with the automotive industry. Inventory management systems of end-of-life (EoL) products are developed by Hwang et al. (2005), Teunter & van der Laan (2002) and Fleischmann et al. (1997). Gu and Liu (2013) propose a reverse information management system with the help of the Internet of Things (IoT) to tackle the uncertain values of time, quality and quantity. The idea of putting a sensor on products to track information of their lifecycle was already addressed in a paper by Thierry et al. in 1995. Nobre and Tavares (2017) have conducted a bibliometric review focusing on the connection of IoT and big data with CE between 2006 and 2015. Their findings give an insight into missing research fields. According to them only 70 papers address both topics, with the majority of these papers being published in China and USA (Nobre and Tavares 2017, 474). However, research into the combination of big data, IoT and CE is still minimal. Furthermore, there also exists a gap between the research and practical environmental actions (Nobre & Tavares 2017, 466). Yam et al. (2005) have developed a framework for enhancing shelf life and food security based on RFID technology. Degradability The report by the Institute for Bioplastics and Biocomposites gives a comprehensive overview of tests performed to examine the workability and comparability of bio-derived plastics (BDP) during their manufacturing processes (IfBB 2016). Pesta (1972) gives an overview of research projects in the field of degradable synthetic materials. It is remarkable that during the period of plastic development and mass production there was already the idea that making plastics rot faster would overcoming their polluting effect. The most common biodegradable material during this time was the polystyrene Ecolan, which was evaluated to be broken down within 3 months of intensive ultraviolet (UV) light (Pesta 1972, 11). Westermann (1994) introduces in her book different research projects, initiatives, outcomes and alternatives to regular packaging material. In total, her book delivers a state-of-the-art overview of biodegradable packaging material up to the 1990s. Hrauda et. al. (1993) deals with LCAs and gives an overview of different packaging materials. Furthermore, they conduct research into the establish30

ment of a framework of LCAs. Feess-Dörr et. al. (1991) analyse returnable and disposable systems with respect to the beverage industry. They found, that returnable systems are to be favoured when considering cost and environmental factors (Feess-Dörr et. al. 1991, 25, 100). Additionally, their assumption is that the transport expenditure associated with disposable and returnable systems didn’t differ, as returnable systems demand more weight to be calculated, and disposable systems demand more transport (Feess-Dörr et. al. 1991, 53). Furthermore, their findings suggest, that the difference in environmental impact between the systems doesn’t lie in different packaging material utilized by each system, but in the system itself. Their research also includes consumer behaviour and industry political strategies with respect to returnable beverage packaging (Feess-Dörr et. al. 1991, 25, 126ff.). Song et al. (2009) examines the compostability of biodegradable plastics for mesophilic home composting facilities. Their results show that they have a wide range of composting properties including small household degraders, where biodegradable polymers are composted within 90 days (Song et al. 2009, 2135). Shah et al. (2007) describes the biodegradability of polymers and the methods of verifiability. Their testing about biodegradability of polyolefins is remarkable, and shows that they may be biodegraded by special microorganisms if they have a low molecular weight (Shah et al. 2008, 256). Mohanty et al. (2002) give an overview on natural fibres and their advantages, and showed them to be lighter and stronger than fossil-fuel derived plastics (FFDPs) and even glass and carbon fibres, although they are still more expensive. The Waste to Energy Report by the Energy Council (2016) gives an overview of existing waste treatment technologies and their status. Cost-Benefit Analysis Pearce (1998) defines cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and compares the CBA strategies of the US and UK in a historical approach. Atkinson & Mourato (2015) further disaggregate CBA and elaborate on it from the perspective of economic behaviour. Chen et al. (1994) develop a CBA model to analyse design changes regarding the rate of recyclability of products. Their findings demonstrate that product design and standards play a crucial role in the economic feasibility of the disassembly and recycling of products (Chen et al. 1994, 505). They show the applicability of their model with the disassembly of a radio and a whole car.

31

Life Cycle Analysis A precursor model on a macro scale of LCAs is the MATTER-MARKAL, scratching processes of products from cradle-to-grave on a European level, including waste, resources and energy (Hekkert et al. 2001, 59f.). This model has been applied to current and future PM demand and improvement. Scipioni et al. 2012 created a new methodological framework by combining ISO 14040 and 14064, and then applying it to a company. Their method focuses only on climate change and not on other environmental impacts, although it leads to a better environmental sustainability performance on both the organizational and SC level (Scipioni et al. 2012, 100). Liptow & Tillman (2012) highlight the land use change (LUC), regarding environmental performance of BDPs. Furthermore, they conduct a sensitivity analysis between landfilling and incineration after EoL. The report of Ziem et al. (2013) examines the LCA of Braskem’s BPE including the effects of LUC with changes in soil organic carbon and ground carbon stocks due to burning of cane and waste. Tabone et al. (2010) compare different plastic materials with the Green Design method in adherence with LCAs. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created a tool for examining the emissions of plastics after their use phase (EPA 2015). Ross & Evans (2003) examine packaging material from refrigerators, making it reusable again. They found that the newly designed reusable packaging is lighter, more durable, and significantly reduces environmental impacts in terms of GHG emissions, waste, energy consumption and resources (Ross & Evans 2003, 570). For other evaluation methods of PM than LCA Svanes et al. (2010) give an overview. Furthermore, they also develop a model examining the interlinkage of product and packaging. Nevertheless, they don’t include environmental factors such as GHG emissions, biodiversity and water usage in their model (Svanes et al. 2010, 172). Hekkert et al. (2000) implemented a model for material substitution in packaging materials, which increased reusability and decreased weight in the food sector, allowing them to analyse the accompanying CO2 savings. Their findings resulted in 51% of CO2 savings and 32%, weight savings with reusable PM (Hekkert et al. 2000, 56). Furthermore, Hekkert et al. (1999) have also conducted research in the field of resource efficiency about transport packaging, stating that reusable PM leads to significant savings of waste, costs and GHG emissions. Therefore, they state that reusability is the most promising answer, in terms of CO2 emissions and resource efficiency.

32

3.)

Circular Economy

As evaluated in the problem formulation, humans are at a tipping point in the search for a solution to the resource, emission, waste and pollution problem. Either we continue with the linear production and consumption of products, utilising the associated packaging material in an unsustainable and myopic way, or seek a more suitable sustainable lifestyle, based on the concept of 6Rs. There are various possible solutions to these problems, but a suitable solution is the Circular Economy (CE). The term was coined in 1970 and is today gaining greater importance due to the scarcity of resources, greater environmental damage and pollution as well as more obsolete products in the linear production system (Nobre & Tavares 2017, 463). The goal of the CE is to expand the lifespan of products as well as moving EoL products from the end of the supply chain to towards the beginning (Bissiri et al. 2016, 41). In other words, the goal of the CE is to use resources and products repeatedly after their period of obsolescence. Waste doesn’t exist in a CE, as unusable products can be composted or used to create energy through anaerobic digestion or incineration (Morlet et al. 2016, 7). By moving more biological nutrients back into the soil through composting and anaerobic digestion, the soil for agricultural purposes will not only get healthier but also require less fertilizers (McArthur 2013, 13). Furthermore, with real time data on soil conditions, weather forecasts and pests, global food production can be maximized whilst minimizing the use of resources such as water, fertilizers and pesticides (Morlet et al. 2016, 27). Overall, the principle of changing waste reduction to prevention, minimization, and reuse enables a two-fold benefit by reducing environmental pollution and by saving and reducing GHG emissions (Hoornweg & Bhuda-Tata 2012, 28). Reusable products don’t only last longer but are also cheaper in terms of repairs and return (McArthur 2013, 15). Furthermore, CE promotes the use of renewable energy to reduce resource dependence and increase resilience against price shocks utilising a holistic thought process (McArthur 2013, 8). In Europe €1.8 trillion could be saved with the CE, including €536 billion in material savings (McArthur 2013, 10f.). Furthermore, by 2030 GHG emissions could be half the number of recorded emissions in 2015 if a circular model is implemented globally.

33

All in all, CE can reduce environmental impacts whilst also enabling economic growth and job opportunities (McArthur 2013, 1). It can also minimize negative externalities, such as environmental degradation and pollution (McArthur 2013, 7). It is a complete shift from the linear economic model towards a looped one. CE is compelling for industries - it not only reduces the amount of resources, costs, pollution and waste, but also reduces supplier dependency and provides a competitive gain, leading to synergy building and resource efficiency. Nevertheless, only a few companies follow its pathway. The former UN Millennium Development Goals and now the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) embrace the functioning of the CE. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) was among the first countries to adopt a circular economy law, which was followed by the EU (Bissiri et al. 2016, 41). Smart objects can sense, store and communicate information about themselves and their surroundings (Morlet et al. 2016, 8). The connectivity and communication of smart objects is called the Internet of Things (IoT) which could lead to the establishment of the CE (Morlet et al. 2016, 7). Connectivity is achieved as already 10 billion devices are connected to the IoT, a number predicted to grow to 20 billion by 2020 (Morlet et al. 2016, 7). In terms of efficiency the IoT already supports the linear model, although it only delays a resource collapse as still finite resources are being consumed (Morlet et al. 2016, 7). However, the IoT in connection with a circular model could decouple economic growth from finite resources, creating value and enabling an economy which is regenerative and restorative. Furthermore, using the IoT as an enabler of CE can lead to resource efficiency and efficient waste management, as well as controlled forecasting and supply (Morlet et al. 2016, 7). In other words, the IoT creates smart assets, making processes transparent and the CE mobilises them in a loop (Morlet et al. 2016, 16). On the one hand, knowing use patterns, product design and customer relations can be improved, and on the other hand costs and transport reduced and the SC improved (Morlet et al. 2016, 19). Overall, reverse logistics and waste management can be simplified by knowing the obsolete materials and products and sorting them respectively. Therefore, resource efficiency in terms of reusing, recycling and incineration can be improved (Morlet et al. 2016, 24). A key point of the CE is the achievement of appropriate product design in terms of reusing, recycling and cascading (McArthur 2013, 16). Also, packaging material needs to be developed in this regard.

34

In other words, the CE can be driven by the IoT as it supports the better management of value chains and collaborative data management tools, such as distributed stream computing platforms which do real-time analytics and pattern identification (Vermesan et al. 2016, 35). The IoT can also improve the surveillance of end-user performance patterns (Friess & Riemenschneider 2016, 11). Enabling the IoT in the packaging sector with a reusable container system may innovate the whole SC and products associated with it. Distribution centres can be built upon demand and products made more resilient, learning from possible bottlenecks and failures. In this regard, figure five sums up the advantages of a circular model when compared to a linear system where resources are wasted because of unsuited waste management strategies.

Figure 5 Circular Model for Packaging Material

Making the transition to the CE will result in the creation of more durable and reusable products, and attaching them to a RFID tag may be one viable solution to make the CE feasible and ease the mentioned problems (Nobre & Tavares 2017, 464). Moreover, collecting data with the products associated with a RFID tag doesn’t only support the rate of reusability but can also be traded as a commodity (Xiao et al. 2014). In summary, the CE promotes not only reusability but natural and material diversity, bringing biological components back into the value streams through anaerobic digestion or composting. It is a holistic economy integrating and connecting all its subparts, which requires a tremendous change in terms of the SC, product design, resources and business models. All in all, 35

it seeks to accomplish the minimisation of natural resources, the maximisation of usage and the elimination of externalities (Stuchtey 2016, 5). It decouples economic growth from finite resources, establishes strong customer relations through the creation of customized products, saves costs and spurs resource efficiency.

3.1.) Closed-Loop Supply Chain Extraction of raw materials, manufacturing and distribution can be summarised as the forward supply chain (FSC) (Xie 2006,5). Conversely, reverse supply chains (RSCs) flow in the opposite direction of the distribution and usage of goods. It is the movement of EoL products from their final user to a centralised location, where they are sorted with the goal to capture value or dispose them finally (Morlet et al. 2016, 8). In relation to PM, RSCs entail the collection of the respective material after its obsolescence and its recovery and processing, afterwards reintroducing it into the flow of raw materials (Kroon & Vrijens 1994, 56). For a returnable packaging system, the reverse transport costs, as well as storage, administration and cleaning need to be considered (Kroon & Vrijens 1994, 58). On the other hand, RSCs include the concept of 6Rs and the disposal of hazardous or nonhazardous packaging waste. Figure 6 visualizes the production steps of FSC and RSC.

Figure 6 Overview of a Closed-Loop Supply Chain

Through RSCs products and materials are brought back to the FSC and can be used again after recovery (Steinhilper 1998, 10). Through this recovery process energy, materials, water, waste and GHG emissions can be saved (Teuteburg & Wittstruck 2010, 11). Both SCs together form a circular system which is called a CLSC, which is a closed stream of materials, components, or products (Sommer-Dittrich 2009, 3).

36

By improving a CLSC with an embedded sensor technology the exact location of a product as well as the condition and availability can be traced (Morlet et al. 2016, 16), hence, making them reusable and smart, eliminating the uncertain factors of time, quality and quantity.

3.2.) Circular Model The SC endeavours to be most efficient and effective, thus ensuring the right amount of goods are held in the right place at the right time, otherwise money is wasted and unnecessary costs arise. Such a system not only includes standardized package materials, but also a standardized enterprise resource management, and would lead to an economic functional distribution of goods with the right use of packaging material. Assuming that with industrial packaging a lot of the workforce, time and money are being wasted for repackaging processes the SC isn’t the most effective and efficient. Resources are wasted as well as time and higher costs arise. Hekkert et al. (1999, 2001) found in their research that significant savings on GHG emissions can be performed in terms of resource efficient PM. Morlet et al. (2016a) also stated that costs, waste and GHG emissions can be saved through a circular model and reusable industrial PM (Morlet et al. 2016, 62). Currently, big batches of products are protected by an outside layer of packaging material and shipped as raw material, pre-finished goods (Pre-FG) or finished goods (FG) on reusable pallets to other suppliers or manufacturers (Hekkert et al. 1999, 15). These goods or raw materials must be unwrapped, labelled and repacked into reusable containers because of particle problems and electric static discharge (ESD) protection on the production lines. Furthermore, components need to be scanned accordingly, thereby uploading them to appear in the SAP system. However, during this process, they are vulnerable to accumulating scratches and dust, and they may get damaged due to failures made by the operators. In each step of the SC single-use industrial packaging material is used, which is then discarded after the arrival at a plant when its components are repacked. Therefore, unnecessary costs, waste and resource use occur, as well as a waste of time due to the associated repacking processes. It is said that in the USA and Europe 25% empty transport occurs (Morlet et al. 2016, 62). It is also assumed in this linear model that more empty transport occurs in comparison with the circular model. However, less weight is used as single-use packaging material is lighter than reusable ones. Additionally, no cleaning costs arise, and less inventory space is needed as single-use packaging materials require less space. If disposable packaging material isn’t standardized a lot of inventory space is being wasted. Furthermore, more flexibility is given

37

as the cycle times of products and PM don’t need to match. However, an integrated and sustainable SC is also not established. The graphic below gives an overview of the abovementioned assumptions.

Figure 7 Linear Supply Chain with Disposable Packaging Material

Overall, packaging changes need to take an integrated and systematic approach, considering organizational and technical issues as well as packaging specifications, for the successful implementation of new packaging materials (Verghese &Lewis 2007, 4388). In total, they must involve a holistic approach and include all stakeholders of the SC (Verghese &Lewis 2007, 4388). Drivers for companies required to change packaging materials are highly related to costs, SC efficiency, timing and regulations (Verghese &Lewis 2007, 4393). Continuous improvement and key performance indicators lead not only to steps of improvement but also to risk assessment and “identification of long term objectives and strategies to improve the environmental performance of all packaging” (Verghese &Lewis 2007, 4398). A holistic and integrated SC approach for packaging leads to significant waste reductions, environmental benefits (Verghese &Lewis 2007, 4399) and less GHG emissions. Ross & Evans (2003) demonstrated that reusable PM leads to significant reductions in energy, waste and resources used, as well as environmental impact (Ross & Evans 2003, 570). The following model gives the proposed framework for a CLSC with reusable industrial packaging. It is assumed, that this model innovates the SC in terms of resource efficiency, waste, costs, time and double handling. Raw material is being shipped in reusable boxes which are then stored in the inventory shelves. These boxes have a standardized size suited for Euro-pallets. The components don’t need to be repacked or scanned and can directly be 38

put in the inventory shelves or the production line in their carrier boxes, thus retrieving time, double handling and waste. Furthermore, the components can be directly saved from dust, humidity and other damage as products are sealed when delivered and can directly be stored. These containers are then shipped back to the pre-supplier upon usage on the shop floor. The same concept can be applied with finished or pre-finished goods. Thus, always the right amount of packaging material is available as it comes hand in hand with either raw material, pre-finished goods, or finished goods and a circular system is established. Takt times, lot sizes and inventory space can be calculated in accordance with packaging material and goods respectively. Empty containers are always stored individually at each supply or manufacturing plant, until a new truckload of pre-FG or FG arrives, and the empty containers can then be shipped reversely. Cleaning of the empty bins happens at each plant where they are filled again, thus at the last manufacturing plant no cleaning occurs. Cleaning happens just before filling, as otherwise the returnable packaging containers are prone to particles and need to be wrapped with foil again. Through the creation of this circular model, cost savings and standardization can be achieved as well as integrated resource planning. Failures of operators and associated damages to products can be scaled down to nearly zero. Single-use packaging material doesn’t have to be purchased and thus even more costs can be saved. The picture below gives an overview of the described assumptions and visualizes the differences of the described linear model from above.

Figure 8 Circular System with Reusable Packaging Material

In this model it is assumed that less transport is needed, although each transport carries more weight due to reusable PM. On the one hand no empty transport occurs, resulting in a reduc-

39

tion in waste, GHG emissions and environmental degradation but on the other hand, more inventory space for the reusable PM material or containers is needed, and cleaning costs occur. Still, the proposed model needs to have well established resource planning, as one full container alternates with an empty container. If the line stands still or if at one end of the line not enough pre-finished goods or finished goods are being consumed, the CLSC won’t work anymore. Returnable packaging material can be designed to be directly used for further manufacturing processes, implementing ESD protection and avoiding relabelling processes. Furthermore, it may be an enabler for industry 4.0 processes by equipping the containers with RFID tags and embedded sensors, thus allowing the inventory system to automatically update itself, listing an accurate number of raw materials, semi-finished products or finished goods. Furthermore, it also informs the producer about possible damage due to falls, particles, and changes of temperature during transport or storage. With this circular system externalities are internalised, and pollution is limited. Thus, environmental and human damage, pollution, GHG emissions and social cost are decreased. Especially as the costs of sensors continually decrease and their capabilities grow to handle large volumes, the mentioned model can be made feasible (Nilsson et al. 2012, 1723). The external environmental costs which occur throughout the lifecycle of industrial packaging material, from the extraction of resources to their manufacture, disposal, recycling or reuse (Verghese &Lewis 2007, 4385) will be elaborated in the CBA model and the LCAs of the respective materials further below. This approach is being undertaken as the materials already give a hint to whether a linear model or CLSC model is performing better economically. For a logistic model of returnable containers refer to Kroon & Vrijens (1994). Possible issues with this model are who the cost bearers of the returnable packaging material will be, and the establishment of the system.

40

3.2.1.) Small Load Carrier Small Load Carrier (SLC) or Kleinladungsträger (KLT) is a special type of reusable packaging material. It is manufactured in standardized sizes with preformed trays for the goods. They are commonly used in the automotive industry and can protect against ESD. KLTs are blow moulded like other containers via extruder blow moulding. Here, the plastic is melted in an extruder, and then inflated with compressed air in a hollow mould (IfBB 2016, 22). A KLT can be used as a crate, defined as an open transport box with a larger bottom and a smaller height (Hekkert et al. 1999, 14), or it can be sealed with a lid. The respective material they are made of is a copolymer polypropylene and is produced from Total as type 76/12, 67/42, 96/12, by Borealis as type BE 970, by LyondellBasel as EP 548 P and by Sabic as CX 02/81. KLTs vary in size and shape. For the calculation model a KLT of 11.8 litres, with 1.1 kg of weight and the following measurements: length 40cm, width 30cm and height 15cm, 64 of the exemplary containers can be put on a Euro palette. KLTs have a temperature range between 20°C to 100°C (Auer 2017). As the cycle rates of KLTs are not known, they are calculated in accordance with the production numbers of the Verband der Deutschen Automobilindustrie (VDA), which receives the total production number of KLTs. The production statistics can be found in figure 39 in Append 1. The total production from 1992 to 2013 amounted to 4,275,841 KLTs, which leads to an average production of 213,792 KLT per year. Taking the ratio of average production per year and annual total production, there is an average cycle rate of 216.58. This number is reliable as the British company Marks & Spencer has conducted 150 cycles with plastic crates (Morlet et al. 2016, 62). Time measurements have been conducted for the repackaging processes of three plants producing electronic components Time measurements are taken for incoming (IG) and outgoing goods (FG). The time and cost savings for the incoming goods are remarkably large, as they need to be scanned and visually checked for quality issues. For privacy reasons the plants are not stated along with the list of examined goods. For plant one 42 different parts have been measured for the FG. Unfortunately, there weren’t any parts measured for the IG. For plant two 23 different components have been measured for the IG, and 3040 for the FG. For the last plant 3423 different parts have been measured as FG and 7854 as IG.

41

The table below shows the results of the time measurements. Plant 1

Plant 2

Plant 3

Average

IG (piece/min)

-

3.62

3.31

3.465

FG (piece/min)

0.0468

0.1104

0.0634

0.0735

Table 1 Real Time Measures of Repackaging Processes

The IoT and Big Data, so called cutting edge technologies make CE concepts more feasible (Nobre & Tavares 2017, 463). This is also the case for the CLSC concept introduced in this publication. Equipped with a RFID tag and embedded sensors, the smart container isn’t only equipped with data regarding the carried inventory, but also about LCI, temperature, environment and possible damage to the load or the carrier itself. The smart container can communicate with its surroundings and with the suitable enterprise resource planning system. Communication in these terms includes, acquiring, storing, processing, and sharing information (Yam et al. 2005, 2). RFID tags are programmable sensors, being able to store, process, sense and send information. Radio waves are sent to a receiver, which can be either a portable device or a computer (Yam et al. 2005, 4). The proposed model in combination with a KLT container contribute to circularity in connection with the IoT. The KLT in this regard forms the intelligent object, which is predefined and standardized PM. This model doesn’t only contribute to savings of GHG emissions, but also to an efficient and effective CLSC with the best rates of reusability and recycling. Demand and supply can be matched, and transparency arises. Real time data can be processed, and inventory levels continuously decreased. To sum it up, the circular packaging model with smart containers could lead to resource efficiency, enhance the SC and inventory management, and also reduces GHG emissions and waste.

42

4.)

Packaging Material

Each product is surrounded by packaging material which protects the goods from physical damage, deterioration or contamination, contains product and marketing information, and eases the process of storage and transportation (Davis & Song 2006, 148). As products are becoming more complex and have higher protection requirements, varied materials and composites are used for PM, differing in their characteristics (Hekkert et al. 2001 58). Packaging material can be classified into three main categories: 1.) Primary packaging is used in the retail or consumer market. It contains a product until it is consumed, e.g. bottle or box. It contains information related to the product, including the company’s name, and has purchasing and stimulating effects on the customer. 2.) Secondary packaging is used for transport services from manufacturer to retailer and groups finished goods together in bulk. It can be defined as a second layer of packaging material, protecting the primary packaging material. Common used secondary PM is cardboard. 3.) Tertiary packaging is used for shipment of pre-finished and FGs from a point of origin to a supplier, manufacturer or distributor, and contains no marketing information. Having less material variation and composites, they are easier to collect, reuse or recycle (Davis & Song 2006, 148). Examples for tertiary packaging materials are unprinted cardboard, shrink and stretch foil, as well as pallets, crates, boxes and heavy bags (Verghese & Lewis 2007, 4384). Packaging material is not only an integrated part of the product, but also leads to intensive solid waste streams, environmental degradation, GHG emissions and the usage of nonrenewable resources. Most often these problems are ignored and not communicated between stakeholders in the SC, which leads to the worsening of the environmental issues associated with PM (Verghese &Lewis 2007, 4382). The use of plastics as a PM show an ambiguous benefit on the one hand and are a threat to humans and the environment due to pollution and on the other, they emit less GHG emissions due to weight savings in transport (PlasticsEurope 2016, 5). Primary PM is various and heterogenous, consumption is fluctuating, and its associated goods are ending up in millions of households. These points make it not only difficult for sorting, but also for recycling and reusing (Verghese &Lewis 2007, 4384) and thus it is difficult to

43

establish a CE for primary PM. Industrial packaging is more homogenous (Verghese &Lewis 2007, 4384), standardized and its consumption can be forecasted. Therefore, reusability and recycling as well as the introduction of a CE is not only cost effective but also feasible. Furthermore, PM is used in most logistic processes, enabling the efficient distribution of products and it is therefore an integrated part of the SC (Verghese &Lewis 2007, 4382). Thus, it has also an influence on all logistical costs, such as vehicles, operations, production, material handling, inventory costs, as well as costs related to information processing and purchasing. (Verghese &Lewis 2007, 4383). All in all, packaging growth is in alignment with the global economy growth (WPO 2008, 3). It had a global market value of 768 billion Euros in 2015 and has an expected CAGR of 3.5% until 2020 (SmithersPira 2016). The tertiary packaging sector is the packaging sector with the highest demand of packaging material. It took 39% of the overall demand of PM in 2015 and a CAGR of 2 % (Page 2017, 7; WPO 2008, 42). Overall as a material, corrugated packaging had the second largest market share in 2015. Plastic materials had the largest share of all, amounting to a global market value of $261 billion which is predicted to increase to $269 billion value in 2020 (SmithersPira 2016; Embree 2016; WPO 2008, 10). Asia took the largest market share in 2015 with 38.5%, while NorthAmerica and western Europe followed with 22.3% and 20.8% respectively. Nevertheless, the use and consumption in the two regions of North America and western Europe has been declining since 2010 (Page 2017, 5). Packaging material made out of metal and glass are expected to shrink between 2015 and 2020, as they are substituted by plastics and paperboard (SmithersPira 2016; WPO 2008, 11). Moreover, bioplastics are gaining more importance in the overall PM market (Page 2017, 10). To the author’s knowledge the tertiary PMs which are reused are mainly KLTs, metal and wood containers and palettes. However, as is demonstrated by the CAGR, reusable PMs such as wood and glass are declining in use. In this regard, the advantages and disadvantages of the two packaging policies, disposable and reusable, are discussed further below and summed up in table two.

44

Disposable Packaging Material Disposable packaging material is clean, doesn’t need to be sanitized after using and no additional transport is required to bring the material back to the user. Additionally, they are lighter which also leads to smaller transport costs (Koffler 1990, 76f.). Examples for disposable packaging material include corrugated paper, shrink and stretch foil. As more and more products are consumed and therefore more packaging is needed, environmental pollution increases as well as the associated damage to the health of humans, it is necessary to question whether or not not biodegradable materials are a more suitable replacement to biodegradable disposable PM as they are compostable. Reusable Packaging Material Reusable packaging materials include glass, metal, wood and plastics. They can lead to the establishment of a CLSC through the continuous use of the material in the economic cycle, instead of the disposal after usage. Returnable packaging material varies in size, shape and cycle times (CT). Common examples of reusable packaging material in industry-to-industry processes are palettes, heavy bags, slip sheets or KLTs. Their impact on the reduction of GHG emissions as well as energy and water consumption, solid waste production and air pollution heavily relies on their respective cycle times (Koffler 1990, 92; Kroon & Vrijens 1994, 57). In industry-to industry processes a standardized multiple-use packaging material not only simplifies the packaging process, and therefore the Supply Chain Management, but also the amount of GHG emission, costs, double handling and social costs. The substitution of disposable PM towards reusable PM can lead to a reduction of 32% of CO2 emissions compared to the base year of 1990 (Hekkert et al. 2000, 34). Disposable Packaging Material

Reusable Packaging Material

Pro

Con

Pro

Con

Clean, hygienic

Wasted resources

Saved resources

Need to be cleaned

No back transport Less weight and size

Recycling is difficult Recycling is possible

Additional transport

Environmental deg-

Less environmental

More weight and

radation

degradation

size

Table 2 Comparison between Disposable and Reusable Packaging Material

Plastics, metal, glass and carton can be easily reused, although they are commonly being collected incinerated, landfilled or recycled.

45

However, the recycling of plastics can only take place based on the purity of the materials and not in composite form (Hopewell et al. 2009, 2119). Therefore, the recycling rate for plastics is smaller than that of metal, glass and paper (Page 2011, 26). Waste management of PM amounts to an integral part of the resource and economic efficiency of the material. Therefore, the four types of EoL possibilities are discussed further below. Frankly, this book questions whether tertiary PM can be reused or if the general policy of discarding it is more efficient.

4.1.) Plastics A world without plastics can’t be envisioned anymore – they are integral to daily consumption patterns, comprising important parts of the automotive, aviation, manufacturing industries, as well as the medical and consumer sectors (IfBB 2016, 4). In the packaging sector plastics are one of the youngest packaging materials, but yet they are also one of the most important owing to their unrivalled characteristics, low costs, various applications and weight (Morlet et al. 2016, 24). They can take any shape and size, have a low weight and density, can be welded to composites and have a high mechanical and chemical stability as well as resistance against temperature and light. Their structure makes them inviolable by microorganisms (Shah et al. 2008, 247). These high-quality products ensure continuous production growth and surpass many other man-made materials (Geyer et al. 2017, 1). Their production rate is 2,5 times higher than the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of the global gross domestic product, increasing from 2 million metric tons in 1950 to 280 million tons annually by 2015, with a CAGR of 8,4% (Gams 2017). Since the start of commercial production of plastics in the 1950s, 8,3 billion tonnes were produced until 2015 (Lorenzen 2013). Of these 8,3 billion tonnes, only 1,577 tonnes or 19% of all produced plastics are still in use (Geyer et al. 2017, 2). All in all, 42% of all plastics produced are used for packaging globally (Geyer et al. 2017, 1; Kershaw 2016, 33), which makes them the largest market for plastic resins (Bohlmann 2004, 342). The first plastic, celluloid, was invented by Hyatt in 1868 as a substitute for billiard balls made out of ivory (Loidl 1987, 5). The next advancement was made by Baekeland in 1907 who invented Phenol-Formaldehyde resin, so called “Bakelites” (Loidl 1987, 5). This plastic has since been used for cans and boxes. Nevertheless, the era of plastic packaging began after the First World War with the invention of polystyrene (PS) and polyvinylchloride (PVC) (Koffler 1990, 34). 46

In the commercial packaging industry these materials were first introduced in the 1950s, slowly substituting other natural materials (Koffler 1990, 35). With the upswing in synthetics a diversification of types took place, although they are grouped in two major classes: thermosets and thermoplastics. While thermoplastics can be continuously moulded, thermosets don’t have this ability (Kershaw 2016, 23). Thermoplastics comprise the most common type of plastics, such as PE, PET, PP, PS and EPS. Examples of thermosets include polyurethane, epoxy resins and coatings. Polyolefins such as PE and PP together with polystyrene take the largest share of thermoplastics in the packaging sector (Bohlmann 2004, 342). The production of plastics is based on the connection of monomers to long chained polymers or networks with a high molecular mass (Šprajcar et al. 2012, 4). Polymers generally can be found in the nature, e.g. DNA, cellulose or starch (Šprajcar et al. 2012, 5). Artificial polymerisation can take place as either addition polymerisation, chain reactions, step reactions and by polymerisation through condensation. Today plastics are made from inorganic and organic raw materials, such as carbon, silicon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and chloride, with the main raw materials taken from crude oil or gas (Shah et al. 2008, 247). Making the polymer chains durable against heat, UV light and oxygen they need to be stabilised. Therefore, plastics contain a variety of different, fillers and additives, increasing their resistance to heat, light, oxygen, ESD and bacteria (Loidl 1987, 9). These additives comprise plasticisers, flame retardants, fillers, pigments and stabilizers. Thermoplastics such as PE, PP and PS contain 93% resins and 7% of additives (Geyer et al. 2017, 1). From the invention of plastics to their commercialisation little consideration has been made into social and ecological costs of waste generation, resulting in environmental degradation and endangering human health because of its endurance and composition (Kershaw 2016, 105). Although, plastics are one of the major polluters of the environment, they save GHG emissions and capture carbon due to the low weight (Hekkert et al. 2001, 70; PlasticsEurope 2007a). Nevertheless, environmental costs and reusability rates aren’t considered in these savings. Moreover, during the production of plastics a variety of pollution takes place such as ozone layer depletion, atmospheric emissions, smog generation, aquatic and terrestrial eutrophication, and toxic chemical and carcinogen generation (Greene 2014, 38). Additionally, ozone depleting substances such as chlorinated or brominated compounds originate from the produc47

tion of plastics (Greene 2014, 38). Atmospheric emissions come from the combustion of fossil fuels during energy consumption and transport, including CO2, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, NOx, SOx and particulates (Greene 2014, 38). To sum it up plastic packaging contributes significantly to the global economy because of their strength-to-weight ratio, associated savings in GHG emissions, low costs, versatility and varied characteristics, to name but a few reasons, but plastic PMs have enormous drawbacks because of their short life cycle, non-degradation in the environment, and polluting effects to habitats, wildlife and humans.

48

5.)

Bio-based Packaging Material

Crude oil is a finite resource as its consumption is higher than its regeneration and therefore, its use will inevitably lead to an end of fossil fuel derived plastics (IfBB 2016, 4). Substitution of fossil fuels as a raw material is possible with various bio-based materials. These bio-based materials have been found widely and used commonly throughout human history. Before the second half of the 20th Century, PMs were made out of organic material. However, vulnerable to hydrophily and microorganism breakdown these materials have not kept up with the high requirements of new product classes. Nevertheless, it can be said that there is a new rise of bio-based PM as is predicted that they will have a CAGR of 7.17% between 2015 and 2020 (Marketreports 2015). They can be based on a wide range of agricultural products such as corn, soy beans, microorganisms, algae, food waste, flax, jute, hemp, wood and other fibres. In total, they may decrease the amount of fossil fuel-based plastics as well as the amount of discarded and landfilled PMs (Hottle et al. 2013, 1899). Moreover, they bind the same amount of CO2 as will be released after obsolescence through incineration or decomposition. In addition, they can be used as compost, fertilizer or animal food and substitute the use of synthetic fertilizers (Westermann 1994, 5). Despite these advantages they are still disposables and don’t enable the rate of reusability. Additionally, 795 million people worldwide are still undernourished and using additional land to grow for PMs could increase this phenomenon (FAO 2015, 8). Energy intensive plants such as corn, sugarcane, potatoes or wheat are also used, increasing the degeneration of soil and fertile land. Land transformation is also a key pillar causing climate change, and is examined by Liptow & Tillman (2012). Moreover, the shelf life needs to be long enough that it doesn’t degrade before EoL. A last point to keep in mind is that, biodegradable material wouldn’t be further used after obsolescence, and the incorporated energy will be lost. Conventional synthetics release their stored carbon slowly over time, while bioplastics release it during decomposition. As the rate of degradability is faster, the amount of released GHG emissions is also faster. To sum it up, bio-based PMs lead to environmental threats to a certain extent but overall finite resources will be saved, and climate change mitigated, as well as pollution. Hence, harming

49

aquatic and terrestrial habits can be overcome as well as serious health risks to humans. (Westermann 1994, 232; Voevedina & Krzan 2013, 3).

5.1.) Bioplastics Natural polymers are commonly found in nature as they form the basis of proteins and carbohydrates in different life forms. They are a binding complex of living organisms with repeating carbon-based units which can be synthesized (Kershaw 2016, 23). Natural polymers “can be found in animals (DNA, fats, proteins, hydrocarbons), plants (cellulose, starch) as well as in lower organisms” (Šprajcar et al. 2012, 7). Bioplastics rely on the same raw materials as natural polymers, which are monomers made out of carbon (Šprajcar et al. 2012, 7). However, technical polymers need to be processed either mechanically, thermally or chemically, to meet the requirements of PM (Voevedina & Krzan 2013, 3). Technical biopolymers are based on various raw materials, such as starch, lactic acid, microorganisms or sugar (Voevedina & Krzan 2013, 5), and can be broadly divided largely into biodegradable and bio-based plastics. Biodegradable plastics are polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) and thermoplastic starch (TPS) which are based on organic resources such as microorganisms, lactides or starch, and can be biodegraded by microorganisms into water, CO2, and biomass (Chen & Patel 2011, 2082). They have the advantage of establishing a closed-loop, as they are totally degradable under certain conditions. Bio-based or bio-derived plastics (BDPs) such as bio-based Polyethylene (BPE) or bio-based Polypropylene (BPP) which are made from biological or renewable resources such as corn, sugarcane, grains, potatoes, vegetable oil and fat or sugar, are hardly biodegradable (PlasticsEurope 2016, 4; Song et al. 2009, 2128; Bioplastics 2015, 4). The most promising raw material for BDPs are energy-intensive plants such as corn and sugarcane, which heavily rely on fertilizers and lead to a faster rate of soil degeneration. However, the amount of taken land associated with them is relatively small - as of 2014 680,000 hectares of feedstocks were used for bioplastics production, resulting in 0.01% of global agricultural use of 5 billion hectares. The amount is predicted to grow to 1.4 million hectares in 2019, or to 0.02% of global agricultural use (Šprajcar et al. 2012, 16). Packaging material is the most used application for bioplastics, amounting to 39% or 1.6 million tonnes in 2016. Other applications for bioplastics are the automotive, consumer, textile and consumer electronics industries (Bioplastics 2015, 8). The bioplastics market is predicted

50

to grow with a CAGR of 28.8% between 2014 and 2020 (FMI 2014). Overall, it has a share between 5 and 7% of the overall plastic resin market (Kumar 2016, 172). The biggest markets lie in Asia, followed by Europe and North-America (Bioplastics 2015, 6). Overall, bioplastics share nearly all the same properties as conventional plastics, and even have a higher density, whilst offering new waste management strategies and being ecofriendly, less toxic in the environment, less dependent on fossil fuels, and having a lower carbon footprint (Bioplastics 2015, 3; IfBB 2016, 11). However, the degradation of biodegradable plastics also takes many years under natural conditions, whilst BDPs are not biodegradable at all, and thus solve the environmental litter only to a certain stage (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 15). Furthermore, the environmental performance of bioplastics heavily depends on the geographical region, agricultural method, usage pattern and source of disposal (Garrain et al. 2007, 1). Moreover, recycling processes may even be more complicated through their mixture with FFDPs (Davis & Song 2006,158). Nevertheless, the use of bioplastics can lead to less environmental impacts and pollution, although they are still more expensive than their FFDP counterparts (Song et al. 2009, 2128; Davis & Song 2006, 151). All in all, bioplastics are a young and innovative industry which is quickly growing. The industry has potential for a low-carbon, resource efficient circular model which decouples economic growth from resource depletion, following the natural life cycle (Bioplastics 2015, 6).

51

6.)

Waste Management

Waste treatment is a major step after obsolescence of the product. According to the EU waste hierarchy, prevention is the most favourable option, followed by reuse, recycling and incineration. Landfilling or disposal are the options considered least favourable, although they are the most commonly used treatments as stated in the problem formulation.

Figure 9 Waste Pyramid in Accordance with EU Framework Directive (EU 2006)

Overall, the environmental impact also depends on a series of technological, geographical and socio-economic factors. As the composition of waste varies, different technologies are necessary for the appropriate management of waste (Pikon 2012, 94). As FFDPs only degrade, meaning that they break apart into smaller pieces but don’t biodegrade, an efficient waste management treatment is necessary. Although heat, moisture, UV light and enzymes may increase the rate of degradation of polymers, these practices must be performed under controlled conditions (Song et al. 2009, 2131), otherwise environmental and human damage occur. A profound overview of waste management techniques and function can be found by the report of the World Energy Council (2016). EoL treatment can have a significant impact on the outcome of the analysis and especially changes the global warming potential100 (GWP100), as stored carbon will be emitted upon incineration, digestion or landfilling (Hermannsson 2013, 28).

6.1.) Recycling Recycling is a term for either the direct reuse of a product or material, or the processing of obsolete materials to create a secondary raw material (Dychoff et al. 2004, 15). Direct reuse means no transformation processes occur and the material will be directly deployed for its original purpose. Reusing items enable a closed-loop, reducing GHG emissions and the num-

52

ber of resources used in production, and keeping environmental damage to a lower level. This level of criteria is envisioned for the circular model and applied in the mathematical model. Transforming obsolete material into secondary raw materials leads to the utilisation of a material for different purposes than was originally intended. Here, the process of recycling can be differentiated into mechanical and chemical recycling. Mechanical recycling is the most widely used and least costly method. Materials to be recycled mechanically need to be transported, collected, sorted, shredded, cleaned and further processed. Sorting is performed through screens, magnets, air blowers and visual inspection and can be simplified with visual, marker or image identification (Morlet et al. 2016 57). Residues from sorting and recycling are incinerated (Astrup 2009, 765). All in all, mechanical recycling is only possible for pure materials and not composites or mixtures. Chemical recycling is the disintegration or depolymerization of materials into their molecules/monomers, e.g. pyrolysis degrades the obsolete material in its chemical components (Morlet et al. 2016, 58). This recycling method creates raw materials with the same properties as the previous virgin materials (Davis & Song 2006, 157). On the one hand, recycling leads to material recovery, resource efficiency and saving of GHG emissions, as secondary materials can be used again as virgin materials (Hoornweg & BhudaTata 2012, 28). On the other hand, materials which are recycled need to be sorted and are inferior in quality, consume energy, and emit GHG emissions, and the addition of more virgin materials is needed to produce a new good (Ren 2003, 29). On average 10% materials are lost during the transformation process of obsolete material into secondary plastics and on average a 20% loss of quality occurs, e.g. LDPE films have a loss rate of 7.6% respectively (Astrup 2009, 768). BDPs complicate the recycling process as they pose another material class and lead to further mixtures of material classes (Song et al. 2009, 2130). Nevertheless, any recycling policy, may it be reuse, mechanical or chemical recycling results in better environmental benefits and resource savings when compared to landfilling or incineration (Hopewell et al. 2009, 2122). According to Pikon (2012) the abiotic depletion potential on average of 1.26 kg Sb eq. for plastics can be saved while recycling (Pikon 2012, 95).

53

6.2.) Incineration In the incineration process organic carbon compounds are oxidized to CO2 and water vapour, which are released into the atmosphere. Incinerated materials emit GHG and toxic substances such as dioxins which are cleaned during various filter processes (Ren 2003, 29). Residual or hazardous waste is delivered by waste trucks to an incineration plant, which is then stored in a waste bunker or wrapped separately in plastic for later incineration. Flaps secure the unloading area, so no odour can escape the waste bunker. A crane lifts waste to mix it and feeds the incinerator. The grate fire burns the waste within an hour at a temperature of 1000-1300 degrees centigrade. The leftovers are slag or scrap, consisting out of glass, stones and metals which are either landfilled or used as construction material.

Figure 10 Incineration Plant (MVA 2018)

Through the incineration process flue gas is created which heats up water. The heated water transforms into steam which drives a turbine generating electricity. Furthermore, the heated water is also used for district heating or cooling. To release the flue gas into the atmosphere it needs to be cleaned in several steps. First the dust particles are filtered through the electrostatic precipitator where they are electronically charged and caught on collector electrodes. In the second cleaning step acidic and toxic substances such as chlorine, fluorine, sulphur and mercury are washed out. Here, water and lime milk are used in wet scrubbers. In a next step coke hydrates and organic pollutants are absorbed by activated coke. The contaminated coke needs to be dumped in salt stocks as it can’t be incinerated. In a last step NOx and ammonia are transformed by a catalytic converter into nitrogen and water vapour. After these cleaning processes the flue gas can be safely released into the atmosphere. 54

6.3.) Landfilling Landfilling is one of the cheapest and easiest options, where any further working steps are unnecessary. Nevertheless, this is only the case in the short term. In the long-term leakages can contaminate water ways leading to severe health issues and environmental degradation. Waste can be carried or washed away by wind and rain leading to the plethora of issues described in the problem formulation. Odour and degradation processes may lead to air pollution, resulting in severe human health issues. Another problem is that landfills must fulfil special conditions that require enormous quantities of space which are already scarce. A modern landfill site has a sealed-wall chamber system, ensuring that no leakages occur, and that the groundwater is safe. In general groundwater can’t escape the chamber walled system, but is instead sucked inside and cleaned by a waste-water treatment plant. Control gauges check the water level and tightness of the wall. Below the groundwater is a special layer of soil which is impermeable to water, e.g. clay. Gas wells collect arising biogas and transport them to gas combustion engines where electricity is produced.

Figure 11 Landfilling Site (MA 48 2013,9)

Landfills accept all sorts of trash, although no hazardous waste. Biodegradable plastics pose no additional problem for landfills (Ren 2003, 30). In total 12 % of the global methane production arises from landfilling (Hoornweg & Bhuda-Tata 2012, 30).

55

6.4.) Biodegradation Biodegradation shouldn’t be confused with degradation, e.g. the braking of plastic parts into microplastics over time due to heat, moisture and mechanical impact (Kershaw 2016, 29). Biodegradation is the process where organic substances are broken down by living organisms or environmental influence under certain conditions (Voevedina & Krzan 2013, 5). Breakdown from polymer to monomer can be obtained by different physical and chemical forces, e.g. heat and moisture, as well as fungi and organisms, leading to mineralization which is the complete break-down into water, CO2 and other natural compounds (Kerhaw 2016, 29). Biodegradation heavily relies on the chemical structure of the polymer. In both cases degradation and biodegradation, the polymer loses its actual properties. Composting on the other hand breaks down the biodegradable material under certain conditions into compost, CO2, minerals, water and methane (CH4) (Shah et al. 2008, 261, Šprajcar et al. 2012, 9). Normally, the biooxidation process takes place under controlled conditions, through phases of mesophilic (35-40°C) and thermophili (55-60°C) breakdown (Shah et al. 2008, 261). A trigger such as microorganisms need to be implemented, whereas biodegradation of PMs doesn’t take place during use phase and just after the use phase (Davis & Song 2006, 154). It can be stated that compostable materials are biodegradable but not vice versa (Morlet et al. 2016, 100). Biodegradable materials contain at least 50% organic matter – and 90%biodegrade after six months, disintegrate under controlled conditions within 12 weeks, and the final product which is compost doesn’t cause any ecotoxicity (Morlet et al. 2016, 68). Aerobic Digestion With aerobic digestion waste can be transformed into biomass, water and CO2 which can be used as fertilizer (Garrain et al. 2007, 8). Here CO2 is added. Nevertheless, mixed waste has a negative impact on the quality of the compost as well as contaminants which need to be sorted out (Ren 2003, 31). Anaerobic Digestion Anaerobic digestion is mainly differentiated by temperature -, mesophilic (35-40°C) and thermophilic (55-60°C), moisture content and the type of digesters (Morlet et al. 2016, 100). In the anaerobic process moisture is added while with aerobic design the leachate is removed from the bottom of the landfill and recirculated with air back into the reactor (Greene 2014, 40). In anaerobic digestion CO2, CH4 and water are released due to a lack of CO2 (Davis & Song 2006, 154). Biodegradable plastics can be degraded in a facility within 12 weeks under 56

50°C to compost by aerobic digestion (Song et al. 2009, 2128). Overall, less energy is used while composting when compared to recycling, although odour and pests may arise (Ren 2003, 29).

6.5.) Results Evaluating the different sorts of waste management is crucial for the respective cost-benefit analysis, resulting in different implications and policies for the examined materials. This is performed as disposal strategies are crucial regarding resource efficiency, human health and environmental damage. The table below summarises the mentioned criteria. All materials are suitable for landfilling although it is a waste of both energy and resources and only a shortterm solution for handling the massive streams of waste. Material

Reusing

Recycling

Incineration

Composting

FFDP

yes

Lower quality

High NCV

no

BDP

yes

Lower quality

Not applicable

Lower quality

Corrugated Paper

Acceptable NCV Acceptable NCV

no yes

Table 3 Summary of Waste Management Technologies with Application of Materials

In western Europe alone three quarters of packaging waste is landfilled, and one quarter is incinerated (Hekkert et al. 2000, 43). Furthermore, the substitution of singular use packaging material towards multiple uses can lead to a reduction of 32% of CO2 emissions (Hekkert et al. 2000, 34). Recycling usually results in raw materials with a lower quality than those of the pre-recycled good. The exception to this rule is chemical recycling, which is still complex and costly. Reusing is possible for both types of plastics, but not for corrugated paper because of missing tensile strength. Incineration for FFDPs is the most favourable practice, because of composite materials, additives and a variety of different artificial polymers. On the other hand, composting is a suitable treatment for biodegradable PMs, such as PHA, TPS, and PLA and corrugated paper leaving no trace in the environment after their transformation into rich soil nutrients.

57

7.)

Life Cycle Analysis

7.1.) Definition A life cycle analysis (LCA) is a system tool measuring the environmental impact of products over their whole life cycle, and providing decisions based upon sustainability and environmental performance (Hottle 2013, 1900). The LCA allows the comprehensive environmental impact analysis of materials, the comparison of environmental performances and the evaluation of alternatives upon the impact categories of a product or material (Luebkert et al. 1991, 3). With LCA ecological and economic weaknesses can be uncovered and improved upon as the ecological damage in a holistic view is demonstrated (Hrauda et. al. 1993, 174f.). The LCA is performed using ISO guidelines 14040 and 14044 and consultants and audit commissions review the results (Vercalsteren et. al. 2012,7). According to ISO 14044 a LCA includes four stages: 1. Goal and Scope Definition of the Study: The goal defines specific questions which are answered in the LCA. The scope defines the system boundaries, including material, quantity, timeframe and geographical aspects (CPA 2010, 1). In other words, the framework and objective of the study are being set. 2. Life Cycle Data Inventory (LCI): The LCI documents the inputs such as energy and raw material flows, and the outputs, e.g. emissions, waste or toxicity, occurring in the system boundaries (CPA 2010, 7). The data of the LCI is transformed into impact categories which are expressed in the LCIA. 3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) and Classification: In this step environmental effects are being quantified with equivalency factors, relying on the data of the LCI (Bohlmann 2004, 344). Without the LCIA the baseline for improvement wouldn’t be quantified, e.g. 1kg of CFC11 is more harmful than 100kg of CO2 (CPA 2010, 7). 4. Evaluation and Interpretation: Here the findings, solutions and optimization are being evaluated and interpreted (ISO 14044 2006, §5.2).

58

LCAs can be either performed as a: (i) cradle-to-gate report: Starting with the extraction of raw materials such as fossil fuels, other resources, or agricultural products and ending with the final product leaving the factory. (ii) cradle-to-grave report: Comprising the cradle-to-gate data and adding the use phase of a product, including waste management strategies. Figure 12 visualizes the connection and interaction of the four steps in a LCA. Together they form an interacting triangle relying on previous processed data.

Figure 12 Triangle of Life Cycle Analysis

LCAs create traceable and standardized environmental impact categories for plants, products or materials which can then be evaluated and interpreted. Nevertheless, LCAs rely on a lot of data, either derived from the industry or associations which may lead to lack of data quality and reliability as well as possible data fraud. Additionally, complex and detailed production processes are examined, making LCIs non-transparent. However, in the examined papers, studies and data banks no significant deviations have been found. For the examined materials the Goal and the Scope are similar.

59

The interpretation and evaluation compare the outcome of all examined materials and thus find out the most suitable one. The LCI of PE is subdivided into the production of the different subgroups for a better understanding and comparison. As only materials are examined the use phase is hard to quantify in a LCA. Hence, waste strategies have been included in the developed mathematical model. Additionally, use phases of products vary and don’t lead to a traceable and transparent LCA. Therefore, only cradle-togate-reports have been examined. Additionally, LCAs don’t take cycle times in the usage phase into account which also led to the creation of an individual mathematical model.

7.1.2.) Goal and Scope The following goals for examined LCAs are intended: •

Comparing major tertiary PMs such as PE and PP with their bio-based counterparts and a biodegradable material which is corrugated paper.

•

Creating a comparable overview of the analysed materials and parameters.

•

Providing stakeholders with a real overview of alternatives, supporting their decision in terms of costs and environmental burden.

•

Creating a better understanding of the investigated products.

•

Benchmarking and demonstrating tertiary packaging alternatives.

Scope The LCAs are performed for 1kg of raw material which represents the functional unit. Plastics are just elaborated as uncompounded polymer resins and don’t include additives, for the respective plastic materials. The LCAs are performed as cradle-to-gate reports, including energy and transport, and don’t comprise the life cycle of the use phase and the respective waste management strategy. General data for the LCAs is derived from various papers and reports, as well as data bases including Ecoinvent, GaBi and TRACI. Further data has been conducted from European refinery plants and corrugated board manufacturers. The system boundaries include all necessary steps from extraction or cropping of raw materials to the production. Maintenance, plant construction and employees are excluded accordingly.

60

It is assumed that fossil fuels are either extracted in the European or the Middle-Eastern hemisphere. Ethanol production of sugarcane is performed in South-America. Frankly, it can be foreclosed that different geographical references or extraction methods lead to higher environmental impacts, e.g. oil extraction from Canadian tar sands, results in 5 times higher GWP100 than oil extraction from Middle East (Tondre et al. 2010, 8268). Another point is that land use change (LUC) which reflects a change of land, e.g. transformation of forest into agricultural land, that is direct or indirect land use change, as changes in the cultivation of crops (Liptow & Tillman 2012, 422). LUC highly depends on geographical factors and thus may differ around the globe. For this reason and as a lot of assumptions need to be taken into account, it hasn’t been included in this publication. The data sets for production have been taken for a period of one year.

7.1.3.) Life Cycle Inventory In general, the LCI includes all inputs and outputs for the manufacturing process of a material or a product, including total energy use, raw materials, air and water emissions and transport. According to ISO resource use, human health and ecological consequences need to be considered which are further quantified in the LCIA. In this book the processing steps of either the growth of raw materials, e.g. sugarcane, or the extraction of crude oil, are necessary and included. In the next step the raw materials are processed for the respective materials and in the end a finished good such as uncompounded polymer resins or corrugated board are produced. The LCI elaborates these steps and provides the necessary data for the LCIA. Transport comprises the move of raw materials from extraction to refinery or processing plant to the respective production plant. For Cradle-to-Gate the following processes are included: •

Extraction and processing of non-renewable resources,

•

Growing, harvesting and processing of renewable resources,

•

Production processes,

•

Energy,

•

Transport.

The LCIAs have been performed with an energy mix of European power plants, including renewable and non-renewable energy. Non-renewable energy includes fossil fuels and nuclear power, whereas renewables comprise wind, sun, thermal and water energy. The ratio for re61

newable energy in EU 28 for 2015 was 26.22% (EU 2017), and 82% in Brazil with 18% energy from fossil fuel (IEA 2017). It includes the extraction and processing of natural resources, as well as electricity losses. Aggregated it has a GWP100 kg CO2 eq. kWh of 0.414 in Europe and 0.215 in Brazil (PlasticsEurope 2014, 19; PlasticsEurope 2016a, 23). As can be seen, the source of energy has a considerable influence on the performance of the LCA. If renewable energy is being used the GWP100 drops significantly (CPA 2010, 19). However, energy mixes are not stable and change over time. Primary energy is used as an input energy and process energy can be used for cogeneration purposes of side products, in other words creating heat and energy for the plant itself or the public grid. In general, the following energy emission numbers apply: CO2 emission/kg crude oil: 0.2278 CO2 emission/kg gas

: 0.1727

(PlasticsEurope 2014, 18). Figure 16 shows the processes of the LCI in a holistic view, and includes the steps for the cradle-to-cradle report with the distribution and usage phase as well as the waste management strategies, showing a crossover to the further developed mathematical model. Furthermore, it also visualizes the separation between the cradle-to-gate and the cradle-to-cradle framework. Additionally, it shows the energy and transport intensive work steps and the production of energy.

62

Figure 13 Life Cycle Inventory of Packaging Material

Lastly, it has been summarised which external environmental impact may occur over the production of a material, and which figures are included in a LCI: 1) Growing, harvesting or extraction of raw materials: degradation of land, loss of biodiversity, pollution from oil spills and chemicals, energy, water consumption, GHG emissions, air pollution. 2) Producing the material: energy, water consumption, GHG emissions, air pollution. 3) Transport: GHG emissions, energy consumption, air pollution. 4) Disposal of materials: environmental harm, litter, air and water pollution and leachate from landfilling, loss of biodiversity.

7.1.4.) Life Cycle Impact Assessment In this analysis step the data collection of the LCI is quantified into environmental and ecological impact categories. Matters regarding water are quantified in the level of eutrophication, biological and chemical oxygen demand and total organic carbon. Matters regarding air are quantified in the level of acidification, photochemical ozone creation potential, global warming potential100 and total particulate matter. Furthermore, abiotic depletion potential functions as a gauge of the rate of extraction of resources.

63

Abiotic Depletion Potential Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP) measures the extraction of resources, e.g. crude oil or iron ore (PlasticsEurope 2012, 36). Energy generation and transport are based upon fossil fuels and therefore included in the ADP. Also, renewable energy contributes to ADP as resources are needed for construction, maintenance and during the operation. Acidification Potential Acidification is caused by acidic hydrogen ions. In other words, certain substances have the ability to create or release hydrogen ions, which are then dispersed or neutralised (Ziem et al. 2013, 5). SOx and NOx are the main contributors to increasing pH values during precipitation, and have the ability of building the acidic hydrogen ions (CPA 2010, 13). The acidification potential (AP) measures the level of additional hydrogen ions. Biological Oxygen Demand The Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) is a quality criterion for the organic pollution of water. It measures the amount of oxygen needed to break down organic material. The samples are tested for 5 days at 20 degrees centigrade. Chemical Oxygen Demand The Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) is another reference for the water quality. It measures the amount of oxygen for reactions in solutions and thus the amount of pollutants which can be oxidized. The BOD is more precise as it only measures biodegradable organic matter and not all organic matter which can be oxidized. Eutrophication Potential The Eutrophication Potential (EP) summarises the substances released into water bodies and their respective damage (PlasticsEurope 2012, 40). Mainly nitrogen and phosphorus compounds enrich water bodies, resulting into growth of aquatic plants. This boom of algae further results in the deoxygenation of water (Ziem et al. 2013, 5). Global Warming Potential100 The impact of climate change is derived with the Global warming potential100 (GWP100) equivalent to CO2, and measured with a time horizon of 100 years in accordance with IPCC (PlasticsEurope 2012, 36). It includes GHG emissions such as CO2 and CH4 during extraction of materials and the production process.

64

Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential Photo-oxidants are formed from NOx with hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) under the influence of sunlight. The photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP) measures the additional impact performed by the production of a material. Moreover, it needs to be considered that the actual ozone concentration is highly influenced by weather and local conditions making the measurement of POCP vulnerable to deviations (CPA 2010, 14). Total Particulate matter Total particulate matter (TPM) with a diameter of less than 10µm (PM10) may cause heart and circulatory diseases as well as a high mortality risk. PM10 consists of non-methane VOCs, SO2, NO2 and ammonia (PlasticsEurope 2012, 37). Total Organic Carbon Total organic compound (TOC) is another indicator for water quality and measures the amount of carbon in organic matter. In the sea the amount of TOC varies between 0.5% and 2%. The table below summarizes the trigger areas of the production processes of the examined materials performed, and the affected environmental impact categories. Trigger

Impact Categories

Agriculture

EP, COD, BOD, TPM, TOC

Fossil fuel consumption

GWP, ADP

Transportation

GWP, ADP, AP, EP

Energy

GWP, AP, EP

Refinery

GWP, AP, EP, ADP

Oil extraction

GWP, ADP, AP, TPM

Steam cracking

GWP, AP, TPM

Ethanol Production

GWP, EP, TOC

Incineration

GWP, AP, POCP

Landfilling

TOC, BOD, COD, EP, TPM

Recycling

ADP, AP, GWP, POCP Table 4 Classification of Impact Categories

65

7.2.) Polyethylene Polyethylene (PE) has a simple molecule structure and consists of long carbon chains and hydrogen. It belongs together with PP to the commodity polymers which take the largest share of plastics in Europe. PE alone takes a share of 36% of produced plastics (Geyer et al. 2017, 1). The material is forecasted to grow from 85 million tonnes in 2015 to 119 million tonnes in 2026 with a CAGR of 4.1%. In total LLDPE shares the highest growth rate, followed by LDPE and HDPE respectively. India and China are the main drivers for PE demand growths (Mistry et al. 2016, 4). Data for PE has been derived from reports of PlasticsEurope and Ecoinvent respectively. The LCIs are performed for each material respectively leading to a profound understanding of the materials, whereas the LCIA and evaluation are conducted in an aggregated form for reasons of comparison. Life Cycle Inventory The LCI includes the production and extraction of crude oil and natural gas, steam cracking and polymerisation (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 4). Data from 52 European producers (EU27, Norway and Switzerland) were collected for the LCI by PlasticsEurope (2016a). The processes besides polyolefin production include on-site energy production and waste water treatment (PlasticsEurope2016a, 28). All plastic production processes are influenced by granule size and the geometry of the specific material, as well as viscosity and temperature (IfBB 2016, 8). The material is established through polymerisation of the monomer ethylene which is a cracking product of naphtha (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 4). Under atmospheric pressure crude oil is heated to between 300°C and 400°C, and thus separated into, e.g. naphta, kerosene and gasoil (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 21). Before this process, crude oil needs to be desalted as it contains inorganic compounds, e.g. water, salts and sediments, which lead to deterioration of the compound (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 21).

Figure 14 Polyethylene Production

66

At the refinery, steam and other side products are used for cogeneration, resulting in less energy and resource consumption. Further, naphta is cracked into smaller molecules which are ethylene, propylene and butylene. After the reaction of the monomer residuals are either recycled or flared. Ethylene is then polymerized with the support of catalysts. Polymerization can take place under high pressure in both gas and solution phases. In the solution phase polymerisation takes place in a liquid medium, whereas polymerisation in the gas phase takes place in a reactor where the polymers are stirred by high speed gas. After polymerisation, the polymer is extruded and finally pelletised (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 12). Chemical and mechanical recycling are possible ways of EoL treatment of PE, and thus they have been included in the figure below, displaying major production steps included in the LCI.

Figure 15 Life cycle Inventory of Polyethylene

Through the production process macro molecules with different branching factors emerge. They differ in their density and are called low, high-density and linear low-density polyethylene (Loidl 1987, 14). The production quality depends on the reactor type, catalytic system, initiator, and co-monomers (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 12). Polymerization in both the solution and gas phases can be also used in combination (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 14). Catalysts are

67

needed because they give polymers more controlled structures, and can influence the characteristics of the respective materials. High-Density Polyethylene High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) is processed with either solution or gas phase, through low pressure polymerisation by insertion (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 14). The choice of comonomers for HDPE can vary between 1-butene or 1-hexene, controlling the density or the amount of hydrogen in the polymer, and influencing the molecular weight (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 13).

Figure 16 HDPE Production (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 15)

As is shown in figure 16, raw materials such as ethylene or propylene are fed into a reactor with other catalysts and chemicals. Finally, the polymer is centrifuged and send to an extruder. HDPE is very rigid, has a high density and crystallinity (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 11). Products created out of HDPE are bubble wrap which is produced out of two layers HDPE foil, garbage bins, industrial bags and crates are made from HDPE (Loidl 1987, 20). Moreover, HDPE can be generated as a foam material, which has a narrow porous cellular structure, and is hygroscopic and electrostatic through the adding of static inhibitors. (Hekkert et al. 1999, 17).

68

Low-Density Polyethylene Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) is processed through high-pressure polymerisation, and organic peroxides and oxygen are used as initiators. Product properties highly depend on the pressure, temperature and the choice of the co-monomers (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 14). For molecular weight control, polar modifiers such as aldehydes, ketones, alcohols or aliphatic hydrocarbons are fed into the production process (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 13).

Figure 17 LDPE Production with High-Pressure Polymerisation (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 17)

As is shown in figure 17, raw materials are first put under low and then high pressure, while materials are further processed and finally completely separated. To produce LDPE, no catalysts are needed but initiators (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 18). LDPE is soft, flexible and has a low density, although it is tough (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 11). The polymer is used for foils, including shrink and stretch wrapping foils and also for containers, bottles and tubes (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 9; Hekkert et al. 1999, 17). Additionally, composite-layer films can be created (Loidl 1987, 17). LDPE can also be used for the coating of paper, carton, aluminium foil, cellophane and others to make it more durable, weldable and water resistant. Linear Low-Density Polyethylene Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) is being generated through copolymerisation of PE using low-pressure polymerisation (Loidl 1987, 14; PlasticsEurope 2016a, 12). It is processed through either gas phase or solution polymerization (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 13).

69

Figure 18 LLDPE Production with Solution Phase (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 16)

Figure 18 shows the production process of LLDPE, where raw material such as ethylene is fed into a reactor which centrifuges the material before catalysts are added, enabling a reaction. In the next step, polymerization takes place in solution phase, where the chemicals are heated up and then evaporated. Finally, they are extruded. Characteristics of LLDPE depend on catalyst type and co-monomer (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 14). The polymer is tough, has a medium density and crystallinity, and can be used to create both rigid and flexible products (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 12). Foils created out of LLDPE have a high-tension crack resistance (Loidl 1987, 23). Compared to LDPE it has a straighter structure with branches closer aligned, giving it more tensile strength (EPA 2015, 3). Life Cycle Impact Assessment It is quite remarkable that the LCIA results of AP, ODP and GWP100 from Liptow & Tillman (2012) are higher than those derived from PlasticsEurope (2016a) for the production processes of PE. Nevertheless, in this publication the figures of PlasticsEurope (2016a) are used as their research includes more plants and is more detailed. The table below sums up the environmental impact categories of PE, including the average.

70

Indicator

Unit

HDPE

LDPE

LLDPE

Average

Energy

MJ

80.1

82.9

79.2

80.7333333

Abiotic Depletion Potential

kg

72

72.8

71.3

72.0333333

GWP100

kg CO2 eq.

1.9

2.1

1.79

1.93

Ozone Depletion Potential Acidification Potential

kg CFC-11 eq. 0.00000064

0.00000082

0.00000057 0.00000067667

kg SO2 eq.

0.0042

0.00436

0.00433

0.00429667

kg Ethene eq.

0.00063

0.0013

0.00047

0.0008

Eutrophication Potential

kg PO4 eq.

0.0012

0.00125

0.0015

0.00131667

Total Particulate Matter

kg

0.00431

0.00445

0.00431

0.00435667

Biological Oxygen Demand

kg

0.00000358

0.00000348

0.000000158

0.00000241

Chemical Oxygen Demand

kg

0.0000351

0.0000888

0.0000267

0.0000502

Total Organic Carbon

kg

0.00000648

0.0000177

Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential

0.000000158 0.0000081127

Table 5 Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Polyethylene

The GWP100, energy consumption, AP and TPM are quite high. This results in the complex refinery processes and extraction of crude oil. Evaluation and Interpretation It is significant that LDPE has the worst environmental performance in all impact categories. In contrast LLDPE has the best scores in nearly all categories, although HDPE has better numbers in AP and EP. The decisive factors for these figures are the different final steps, resulting in products of different characteristics and density. The most pressing factors in the production processes of the PEs are the type of polymerization, transport, refinery process and the type of extraction of crude oil. Refinery is an energy intensive work which is only economically feasible because of a variety of arising products, cogeneration of side products and energy efficient machines. 71

Types of production are also crucial as hydraulic fracturing, or the pressing of tar sands lead to not only to higher extraction costs but also to higher environmental impact categories. Products out of HDPE are harder and stiffer than products out of LDPE. The melting point is 20 degrees Celsius higher and the permeability is better. Characteristics of the PEs are various. Generally, it can be stated that they have a low density (lower then water), good chemical durability, low water absorption, good transparency, good plasticity and weldability. Nevertheless, they are permeable to oxygen, carbon, fragrances and aromas. Another disadvantage is their vulnerability to thinners, which cause them to undergo stress cracking (Loidl 1987, 16). PEs can be mechanically recycled, although they don’t biodegrade but may break down to smaller pieces because of environmental conditions and UV light (PlasticsEurope 2016a, 5).

7.3.) Polypropylene Polypropylene (PP) consists of crude oil and is based on propylene as a monomer and ethylene as a co-monomer (PlasticsEurope 2014, 8). PP is among the most important thermoplastics and the second most used plastic packaging material in Europe after PE with a share of 21 % (PlastcisEurope 2016, 20; Geyer et al. 2017, 1). In 2017 it constituted 62 million tonnes, which is predicted to grow to 85 million tonnes by 2026, with a CAGR of 3.8% (Mistry et al. 2016, 5). For the LCA, data for PP has been taken from 38 European production plants which is derived from a report by PlasticsEurope (2014). Life Cycle Inventory The production of PP is like the manufacturing of PEs as it is based upon naphta and processed through chain polymerisation (PlasticsEurope 2014, 10). The only difference is the choice of co-monomer which is propene in the case of PP. Steam cracking of naphta takes place through fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) of distillation residues and oils (PlasticsEurope 2014, 3).

72

Figure 19 Production of Polypropylene

For polymerization both gas and liquid phases can be used. The polymer is further extruded and pelletised. Additives are added if necessary (PlasticsEurope 2014, 10). Catalysts are necessary for the production process of PP (PlasticsEurope 2014, 10). The LCI includes the extraction and refinery of crude oil and natural gas, the fluid catalytic cracking process and steam cracking of monomers into PP (PlasticsEurope 2014, 3). Energy usage is compared between renewable and non-renewable sources and relies on the data of European energy producers. Important for the production and included in the LCI of PP, is the petroleum refinery and its associated steps of desalting, atmospheric and vacuum distillation of crude oil, as well as the monomer production based on steam cracking and FCC (PlasticsEurope 2014, 14ff.). Through steam cracking various side products are derived which fuel as energy. This process is closed-loop, keeping the amount of energy and resource loss to a minimum (PlasticsEurope 2014, 29). Figure 20 sums up the described production processes which are included in the LCI. All in all, the main difference between PE and PP production occurs during the polymerization process where the monomer propylene is used instead of ethylene during the production of PE. Additionally, the type of polymerization differs in the production of PP from the type of polymerization of PE. Hence, the figure below doesn’t differ significantly from the LCI figure of PE.

73

Figure 20 Life Cycle Inventory of Polypropylene

Also here, as for PE, the polyolefin production is regarded as an isolated process. The LCI is dominated by the monomer production and refinery of crude oil, taking the highest part of energy, transport and GWP100. Life Cycle Impact Assessment The table below sums up the results of the environmental impact categories for PP. The energy consumption is high as well the GWP100, TPM, EP and the AP. This can be explained by the energy intensive extraction method, polymerization and refinery process. Indicator

Unit

PP

Energy

MJ

77.80

Abiotic Depletion Potential

70.2

GWP100

kg CO2 eq.

1.95

Ozone Depletion Potential

kg CFC-11 eq.

0.00000055

Acidification Potential

kg SO2 eq.

0.0046

Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential

kg Ethene eq.

0.00037

Eutrophication Potential

kg PO4 eq.

0.0018

Total Particulate Matter

kg

0.00428

Biological Oxygen Demand

kg

0.00000238

Chemical Oxygen Demand

kg

0.0000279

Total Organic Carbon

kg

0.00000601

Table 6 Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Polypropylene

74

Evaluation and Interpretation All in all, PP has nearly the same environmental impact as PE. Both lie in the same range and don’t differ a lot from each other, although PE has a higher energy consumption rate. The most influencing factors for the environmental impact categories of PP are the extraction of resources, the refinery and polymerization as well as the overall transport. As in the processing of PE, here a change of extraction method and refinery mode would lead to a tremendous increase in the environmental impact categories. With FCC compared to steam cracking, 10% in cumulated energy and 40% of GWP100 can be saved in the manufacturing process (PlasticsEurope 2012, 40). Additionally, the type of cracking and polymerization is important. The characteristics of PP are also similar to the ones of PE. However, PP mainly has a high impact strength and softening point and is resistant to scratches (EPA 2015,4). It is stiffer, harder and more crack resistant than HDPE (Loidl 1987, 23). In total it has a high melting point, low density, and good stiff- and toughness (PlasticsEurope 2014, 9). As packaging material, it is used as film material and KLTs.

7.4.) Corrugated Paper Corrugated packaging has the highest market share as well as the highest CAGR among all other paper products, and the second highest share as PM after plastics (SmithersPira 2016, WPO 2008 16ff.). The base material for corrugated paper is paper, thus the production process of paper is further developed and included in the LCA. Paper was developed in China in the first Century BC for writing purposes (Koffler 1990, 23). Cardboard was invented in the eighth Century by gluing different layers of paper together, a methodology which hasn’t changed much in modern day cardboard production. In the 18th Century it was used to substitute boxes of wood and metal, and has been used since 1881 as a delivery box for the post (Koffler 1990, 26). Today it is used for various logistic activities. Goal and Scope The data for the LCA of corrugated paper is derived from FEFCO (2015) and the Corrugated Packaging Alliance (CPA) (2010), and also relies on data from major manufacturers in Europe and the database Ecoinvent. In total, data from 224 plants were collected with a production capacity of 40% of the total corrugated paper production within Europe (FEFCO 2015, 18). The report by CPA uses data from 53 US containerboard manufacturers, which amounted 75

to 90 percent of the US market volume in 2006 (CPA 2010, 5). The virgin raw material included in the data consists of 59% of the sustainable forest management systems. Also, secondary materials are included in the production process, which take a majority share of 88% in the EU (FEFCO 2015, 17). However, 12% of recycled corrugated paper can’t be used anymore due to quality and technical constraints and is thus landfilled or incinerated. Life Cycle Inventory The following production process of corrugated paper is described by FEFCO (2015). Wood is the main material for obtaining cellulose fibre which is the most common polymer on earth, consisting of glucose monomers (Šprajcar et al. 2012, 17). Wood is delivered to a mill as wood chips or pulpwood logs, which are debarked and chipped. In the next step the processed wood chips are cooked in a digester with caustic soda and sodium sulphide between 150°C and 170°C. Out of 1 tonne of dried wood normally 550kg of pulp can be obtained (FEFCO 2015, 5). The wood pulp is then further processed through refiners, washing and cooking it. Finally, the processed pulp is dewatered at a temperature between 80°C and110°C and wax, inks and coating binders are extracted from the pulp. The finished pulp is then treated in a paper mill with additives and fillers, increasing its pH level. The finished product is further dewatered and pressed into sheets. Processed water is reintroduced into the pulp making process.

Figure 21 Production of Corrugated Paper

Corrugated paper consists of several special conditioned layers of recycled or virgin paper, which are filled into a corrugator. Heat and steam give the paper its fluted shape, which is then coated with starch and glued to a facing. Corrugated board can include several layers of fluted paper. Starch is added to change the characteristics of the finished product, improving it in terms of gas permeability and water resistance (FEFCO 2015,11).

76

The finished product of corrugated board has a moisture content between 7 and 8% (FEFCO 2015, 21). Residues from the production of primary materials are ash, green liquor sludge and lime mud which are commonly landfilled or used as fertilizer (FEFCO 2015, 22). To produce 1kg corrugated paper 1.1kg of paper is needed with 0.1kg of output for recycling purposes or disposal (FEFCO 2015, 29). To produce 1kg of paper, 210 grams of wood is used along with 370 grams of recovered paper, 0.11 grams of bleached pulp and 0.19 grams of unbleached pulp (FEFCO 2015, 30). The recycling rate of paper is five to six times, as the fibre becomes too short after successive rounds of recycling. Nevertheless, the leftover material can be composted as it is totally biodegradable. During landfilling CH4 is released (Hekkert et al. 2001, 59). Recycling for corrugated paper after the use phase is promising, and thus a high percentage of secondary material has been included in the production steps of the LCI. The figure below sums the major production steps of corrugated board processing up.

Figure 22 Life Cycle Inventory of Corrugated Board

Overall, 4.9kg of water is needed to produce 1kg of corrugated paper, although only a small amount evaporates during the drying process (CPA 2010, 8; FEFCO 2015, 24). Normally, water is pre-treated by a waste water treatment plant on site.

77

Raw materials such as wood is transported by either rail or road to the plants, and both trucks and trains are always fully loaded. A truck can carry between 40 and 44 tonnes of wood. Unfortunately, empty back transport occurs, with a rate of 40% for trucks (FEFCO 2015, 24). In total, recovered paper is transported 118 km of transport by truck, 245 km by rail, 1069km by ship and 339 km by truck which have been included in the LCI. The transport of residues hasn’t been included, as landfills are usually close by the manufacturing plant. Finished paper products are transported on average 59% by truck over 259 km, 18 % by train over 108 km, and 23 % by boat over 488 km (FEFCO 2015, 37). Life Cycle Impact Assessment The Eutrophication level of corrugated paper is high as phosphorous and nitrogen are released during the agriculture and production processes as polluted water (CPA 2010, 12). Besides starch and glue, small amounts of caustic soda, borax and wet strength agent are used resulting in the further damage of water ways (FEFCO 2015, 20). Additionally, all water indicators are high because paper and corrugated board production are both industries heavily dependent on water. The table below sums up the results in the environmental impact categories. Indicator

Unit

Corrugated Paper

Energy

MJ

47.81

Abiotic Depletion Potential

-

GWP100

kg CO2 eq.

0.49

Ozone Depletion Potential

kg CFC-11 eq.

-

Acidification Potential

kg SO2 eq.

0.00053

Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential

kg Ethene eq.

-

Eutrophication Potential

kg PO4 eq.

0.000356

Total Particulate Matter

kg

0.00000101

Biological Oxygen Demand

kg

0.00011

Chemical Oxygen Demand

kg

0.00034

Total Organic Carbon

kg

0.000126

Table 7 Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Corrugated Paper

78

Evaluation and Interpretation Energy consumption is decreased as energy recovery takes place onsite through the burning of unusable chips and bark. Plants use this energy for production purposes and heat. Most often heat and power generation is combined and used for the onsite steam consumption (FEFCO 2015, 22). This energy efficient method leads to a smaller GWP100 and less air emissions. The paper industry consumes a lot of wood, relying on fast growing tree species which are vulnerable to pests and storms, and thus require pesticides which lead to the erosion of soils and water pollution (Westermann 1994, 389ff.). Furthermore, wood is the number one material storing carbon and thus mitigating climate change. Although only a small amount of water is being consumed and treated on site during manufacturing it has a high impact on the pH level of water and the organic compounds contained in it. Hence, the environmental impact categories related to water are high. Using less secondary material in the production process results in overall higher environmental impact categories and worsens environmental performance of the production of corrugated board.

7.5.) Bio-based Polyethylene Bio-based Polyethylene (BPE) has identical chemical and physical properties as conventional PE, although it emits less GHG emissions (Kumar 2016, 169; Morlet et al. 2016, 93; Šprajcar et al. 2012, 21). It is a renewable alternative to conventional PE, is used mainly for PM and can be recycled in the same way as conventional PE (Braskem 2014, 1). The base material is ethanol which can be produced from a variety of lignocellulosic substances, such as wood, corn, sugarcane and others (Chen & Patel 2011, 2086). It is a natural chemical process as ethylene is produced naturally during the ripening of fruits (Šprajcar et al. 2012, 21). Scope The LCA is based on the BPE production by the Brazilian company Braskem. Three different mills are investigated and included in the LCA. The base year is 2011/12. Sugarcane is cultivated in Brazil and processed to alcohol there (Liptow&Tillman 2012, 421). 50% of Brazil’s sugarcane is used for ethanol production, comprising 8 million hectares of landmass, with a possible growth potential of 65 million hectares (Braskem 2014, 3).

79

Life Cycle Inventory It is assumed that the production of BPE relies on ethanol from sugarcane, a process which is described by Liptow & Tillman (2012) and Šprajcar et al. (2012). Sugarcane is cultivated and processed to ethanol. During cultivation, pesticides and other chemicals are used. Harvesting, ploughing and planting is performed mechanically. The harvested raw material is transported to a sugar factory.

Figure 23 Production of Bio-based Polyethylene

Here, cane is cleaned and crushed in a grinder. Lint materials arising by ethanol production can be used for energy recovery purposes, as well as sugarcane juice. For ethanol production the harvested cane is pre-treated by washing, crushing, and undergoing pH adjustment. Afterwards yeast is added and fermentation takes place. Ethanol is heated up with a reactor product and then dehydrated at 481°C and 11.3 bar pressures. The created ethylene is purified and polymerized at a temperature between 130°C and 330°C (Liptow & Tillman 2012, 424f.). In total to produce 1kg of ethanol 12.3kg of sugarcane is needed. The steps to be included in the LCI are summed up by figure 24. Moreover, the necessary transport and energy steps are included. In contrast to the conventional plastics, BPE can only be recycled through mechanical recycling and not through pyrolysis.

80

Figure 24 Life Cycle Inventory of Bio-based Polyethylene

The polymerization differs also from the polymerization method of conventional plastics and is less complex, although it uses the same amount of energy. Life Cycle Impact Assessment Major contributors to the environmental impacts associated with the processing of BPE are land use, harvesting, ethanol production, polymerization, energy and transport. The GWP100 is negative, because BPE stores carbon and through cogeneration energy and heat can be produced (Ziem et al. 2013, 5). Acidification takes place mainly because of bagasse combustion, agricultural activities and husk burning (Ziem et al. 2013, 5). The EP is caused by agricultural activities and ethylene production and results in contamination of water bodies by phosphate and phosphorous. POCP arises mainly through agricultural activities and ethanol production.

81

Indicator

Unit

Bio-PE

Energy

MJ

29.1

Abiotic Depletion Potential

3.05

GWP100

kg CO2 eq.

-2.2

Ozone Depletion Potential

kg CFC-11 eq.

0.0024

Acidification Potential

kg SO2 eq.

0.00393

Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential

kg Ethene eq.

0.0034

Eutrophication Potential

kg PO4 eq.

0.017

Total Particulate Matter

kg

-

Biological Oxygen Demand

kg

-

Chemical Oxygen Demand

kg

-

Total Organic Carbon

kg

-

Table 8 Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Bio-based Polyethylene

Evaluation and Interpretation Substantive differences can be seen between the energy use of corn and sugarcane. For sugarcane the non-renewable energy consumption is 9.1 MJ/kg and for corn 43.4 MJ/kg (Chen & Patel 2011, 2092). This can be explained by the fact that sugarcane production takes place in better climate conditions, and cane husk can be better transformed into biomass energy (Chen & Patel 2011, 2093). Respectively, the same happens with GWP100, as BPE with sugarcane has a larger negative CO2 impact than with corn (Chen & Patel 2011, 2094). AP and EP are high to produce BPE because of the use of fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides, as well as ethanol production. The GWP100 is negative as CO2 is stored and bagasse can be cogenerated. The cogeneration process accounts for approximately 25% less of the overall GWP100 score (Ziem et al. 2013, 7). Overall, improvements in cropping and mill processing can lead to an efficiency increase of 10 to 20% in all impact categories (Ziem et al. 2013, 6). Direct LUC can furthermore lead to an additional 40% improvement of the GWP100 score, because changing to sugarcane increases the carbon stocks in or above ground (Ziem et al. 2013, 7). On the other hand, indirect land use change increases GWP100 by 40% (Ziem et al. 2013, 11). Transport has only a small influencing factor and increases the GWP100 score between 2 and 4% (Ziem et al. 2013, 8). 82

7.6.) Bio-based Polypropylene Bio-based Polypropylene (BPP) has the same physical and chemical characteristics as its counterparts from fossil fuels, although its production process is more complex and expensive (Chen & Patel 2011, 2086; MRR 2017). In 2016 the BPP market had a volume of €26.5 million and a CAGR of 5.1 %. Like for the other PMs, the main markets for BPP are in North-America, Europe and Asia (MRR 2017). Goal and Scope LCAs for BPP haven’t been performed yet and no data bank provides any information about the material. Therefore, it is hard to get data and information about the production process. Hence, existing data and processes have been collected accordingly. Life Cycle Inventory BPP can be processed by materials such as lignocellulosic or starch derivates (MRR 2017). However, in this publication the BPP production follows the process of BPE with the same raw material of glucose from sugarcane. The processes of growing, harvesting and processing sugarcane are supposedly the same as those to produce BPE. The difference between BPE and BPP production happens in the transformation of ethylene, which is here separated and metastasized into propylene (Anissimova 2015, 18). Afterwards the polymerization of propylene takes place at a high temperature and pressure in a reactor. The flowchart below gives an overview of the production steps.

Figure 25 Production Flow of Bio-based Polypropylene

The polymerization process requires a monomer substrate of high purity (Chen & Patel 2011, 2084). The figure below summarises the production processes which are necessary for the LCI data. It involves the same steps as for the production of BPE, however processing propylene out of ethylene is more complex and consumes more energy. As for the other examined polymers this material can either be either reused, recycled or incinerated. Nevertheless, like for BPE chemical recycling is not possible.

83

Figure 26 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis of Bio-based Polypropylene

Life Cycle Impact Assessment The only numbers which were possible to derive to produce BPP were the rate of energy consumption, ADP and GWP100. Other figures require further research. Indicator

Unit

Bio-PP

Energy

MJ

42

Abiotic Depletion Potential GWP100

0.42 kg CO2 eq.

-0.25

Table 9 Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Bio-based Polypropylene

The GWP100 is negative as carbon is being stored. Nevertheless, the GWP100 of -0.25 kg CO2 eq. BPP is significantly lower than the value calculated for BPE. The ADP equals 42 kg SB eq. BPP. The main impact areas for BPP are energy consumption, as well as the mode of agriculture, type of plant and transport. New sugars based on wood, straw and waste may reduce the carbon footprint of sugar production (Anissimova 27, 2015).

84

To sum it up, BPP is a very complex and energy intensive product compared to the FFDPs. More research needs to be conducted into this material, and production process simplified, in order to accelerate growth.

7.7.) Evaluation and interpretation BDPs have a higher melting point than their counterparts. All of the examined materials have a low density, making all but corrugated board float on water. The weldability of all materials is good. BDPs have a lower crystallinity and are stiffer than FFDPs. Corrugated board is vulnerable to water making it impossible to be reused. A direct comparison can be found in figure 40 in Appendix 2. The following charts directly compare the outcomes of the LCA for each of the respective material. Frankly, it can be stated that the lower the environmental impact the better. In Appendix 3 as figure 41 a complete overview of the analysed materials can be found, including more environmental impact categories. Additionally, the characterises of the materials are summed up in a table.

Abiotic Depletion Potential (MJ) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PP

HDPE

LDPE

LLDPE

Bio-PE

Bio-PP

corrugated paper

Figure 27 Abiotic Depletion Potential Overview

The ADP in MJ of the FFDPs is the highest as they require not only energy and transport relying on fossil fuels, but they are also directly derived from fossil fuels themselves. HDPE and LLDPE have the same ADP, and LDPE has the highest value. BPP has a higher ADP than BPE as more energy is needed to process this material. Corrugated paper has the lowest score as less energy and transport is required for the production process.

85

Corrugated paper has a significantly smaller acidification potential kg SO2 eq. than its counterparts, and its score is nine times smaller than PP which has the highest score.

Acidification potentional (kg SO2 eq.) 0,005 0,0045 0,004 0,0035 0,003 0,0025 0,002 0,0015 0,001 0,0005 0 PP

HDPE

LDPE

LLDPE

Bio-PE

Bio-PP

corrugated paper

Figure 28 Acidification Potential Overview

The AP clearly shows that the FFDPs have the highest impact on air pollution, followed by BPE. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been enough data yet to calculate the AP of BPP. However, it is assumed that it lies in a similar range as BPE because the raw material production is the same.

Biological Oxygen Demand (in kg) 1,20E-04 1,00E-04 8,00E-05 6,00E-05 4,00E-05 2,00E-05 0,00E+00 PP

HDPE

LDPE

LLDPE

Bio-PE

Bio-PP

corrugated paper

Figure 29 Biological Oxygen Demand Overview

Corrugated Paper has the most influence on BOD in kg, and its score is more than 25 times higher than the values calculated for the rest of the examined materials. This can be accounted as the production of corrugated paper is a water intensive process which highly pollutes the

86

processed water accordingly. For the BDPs not enough data was available to perform the analysis. The FFDPs have rather a small influence on the BOD.

Chemical Oxygen Demand (in kg) 4,00E-04 3,50E-04 3,00E-04 2,50E-04 2,00E-04 1,50E-04 1,00E-04 5,00E-05 0,00E+00 PP

HDPE

LDPE

LLDPE

Bio-PE

Bio-PP

corrugated paper

Figure 30 Chemical Oxygen Demand Overview

The COD in kg is similar to the BOD, and the same results for corrugated paper in the BOD score were observed here. The values of the FFDPs are also correlated with the values of the BOD, although they are higher in this impact category, with LDPE marking the highest FFDP spike. The other FFDPs stay in a similar range. For the BDPs not enough data was available.

Eutrophication Potential (kg PO4 eq.) 0,018 0,016 0,014 0,012 0,01 0,008 0,006 0,004 0,002 0 PP

HDPE

LDPE

LLDPE

Bio-PE

Bio-PP

corrugated paper

Figure 31 Eutrophication Potential Overview

BPE has the highest eutrophication potential kg PO4 eq., which is eight times higher than the FDP because it is an agricultural product and fertilizers including phosphorus are washed from fields into waterways. Corrugated paper has the lowest impact overall in this impact

87

category, as phosphor isn’t needed for the faster growth of trees. For the FFDPs it arises during mining, the refinery processes, and transport.

Energy (MJ) 90,00 80,00 70,00 60,00 50,00 40,00 30,00 20,00 10,00 0,00 PP

HDPE

LDPE

LLDPE

Bio-PE

Bio-PP

corrugated paper

Figure 32 Energy Overview

The FFDPs require the most energy to be processed, with LDPE topping the group. They need a high amount of energy throughout their processing, from the extraction of oil, refinery, steam cracking of naphta and polymerization. The processing of corrugated paper is also energy intensive as a lot of steam is needed throughout the process, and the final product also needs to be dewatered. For the BDPs the production of ethanol and polymerization processes consume the most energy. As energy efficient machines and cogeneration of side materials are used in all production processes of the examined materials the energy levels are overall lower.

GWP100 (kg CO2 eq.) 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 -0,5

PP

HDPE

LDPE

LLDPE

Bio-PE

Bio-PP

-1 -1,5 -2 -2,5

Figure 33 Global Warming Potential100 Overview

88

corrugated paper

The GWP100 kg CO2 eq. is negative for the BDPs as they store carbon and don’t emit more CO2 during production than they store. Corrugated paper contributes to GWP100 kg CO2 eq. despite the fact that it is derived from biomass. Hence, the energy and transport input for manufacturing corrugated paper is higher than the carbon stored in the material. The FFDPs have a GWP100 kg CO2 eq. four times higher than that of corrugated paper, with LDPE scoring the highest figure. This is the case as a lot of GHG emissions are being emitted during extraction, refinery and polymerization.

Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (kg Ethene eq.) 4,00E-03 3,50E-03 3,00E-03 2,50E-03 2,00E-03 1,50E-03 1,00E-03 5,00E-04 0,00E+00 PP

HDPE

LDPE

LLDPE

Bio-PE

Bio-PP

corrugated paper

Figure 34 Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential Overview

BPE has the highest score of POCP as it is produced from agricultural products. This is, followed by LDPE, which amassed one third of the BPE value. For BPP and corrugated paper there was not sufficient data available to perform the analysis. Nevertheless, it can be concluded that BPP reaches a higher or similar amount of POCP in kg than BPE because the base material is also an agricultural product and the production process is more complex than the one of BPE.

89

Total Organic Carbon (in kg) 1,40E-04 1,20E-04 1,00E-04 8,00E-05 6,00E-05 4,00E-05 2,00E-05 0,00E+00 PP

HDPE

LDPE

LLDPE

Bio-PE

Bio-PP

corrugated paper

Figure 35 Total Organic Carbon Overview

Corrugated paper is supposed to reach a lower level than BPE in the POCP category, although it relies on plants as raw materials. Nevertheless, this agricultural product doesn’t need the same amount of chemicals as sugarcane. The TOC values correlate with the two other water indicator figures, BOD and COD, and corrugated paper also obtained the highest value in this impact category as it is a water intensive product. LDPE reaches the second highest number, although it is one seventh of the corrugated paper value. For the BDPs there was not sufficient data available to perform the analysis, although their value would be estimated above the ones of the FFDPs as they are also based on agricultural products.

Total Particulate Matter (in kg) 0,005 0,0045 0,004 0,0035 0,003 0,0025 0,002 0,0015 0,001 0,0005 0 PP

HDPE

LDPE

LLDPE

Bio-PE

Bio-PP

corrugated paper

Figure 36 Total Particulate Matter Overview

90

The value of TPM including fine particles in kg is the highest for the FFDPs, topped by LDPE. The value of corrugated paper is neglectable when compared to those of the FFDPs. For the two BDPs there was insufficient data available. Nevertheless, also here it can be concluded that their fine particle value is way below the ones of the FFDPs as their production process emits less fine particles. The table below sums up all the described values and directly compares them.

BPP

corrugated paper

29.1

42

47.81

71.3

30.5

42

0.2701

1.79

-2.2

-0.25

0.49

Ozone Depletion Po- kg CFC- 0.0000 0.00000 0.0000 0.00000 0.002 tential 11 eq. 0055 064 0082 057 4

-

-

Acidification Potential

0.003 9

-

0.00053

Photochemical Ozone kg EthCreation Potential ene eq.

0.0003 0.003 0.00063 0.0013 0.00047 7 4

-

-

Eutrophication Poten- kg PO4 tial eq.

0.0018

0.0012 5

0.017

-

0.00356

Total Particulate Matter

kg

0.0042 0.0044 0.00431 0.00431 8 5

-

-

0.0000010 1

Biological Oxygen Demand

kg

0.0000 0.00000 0.0000 0.00000 0238 358 0348 0158

-

-

0.00011

Chemical Oxygen Demand

kg

0.0000 0.00003 0.0000 0.00002 279 51 888 67

-

-

0.00034

Total Organic Carbon

kg

0.0000 0.00000 0.0000 0.00000 0601 648 177 0158

-

-

0.000126

Indicator

Unit

PP

HDPE

Energy

MJ

77.80

80.1

82.9

79.2

70.2

72

72.8

1.95

1.9

2.1

Abiotic Depletion Potential GWP100

kg CO2 eq.

kg SO2 eq.

0.0046

LDPE LLDPE BPE

0.0042 0.0043 0.00433

0.0012

0.0015

Table 10 Summary of the Environmental Impact Categories

The FFDPs are derived from fossil fuels as raw material, therefore they also have the highest ADP. Additionally, their refinery and extraction process are energy intensive. Nevertheless, BPP also takes a high share in this impact category, although lower than those calculated for FFDPs, because it includes a complex and energy intensive production process. Corrugated paper has the lowest ADP as less energy and transport are necessary for the product. For AP, all plastics including the BDPs are in the same range, although PP has a slightly higher impact 91

in this category. These impact numbers show that also products relying on agriculture are heavy air polluters. For the water indicators COD, BOD and TOC, corrugated paper has the most severe impact, while the rest of the examined materials performed in a rather acceptable range. This is the case as corrugated paper needs and pollutes a lot of water during production. For EP, BPE is the outlier whilst the other conventional plastics stay in the same range. Hence, agricultural products have a high impact on the acidification of water bodies because a high amount of fertilizers is necessary to grow energy intensive plants. Corrugated paper, despite having a high impact on the other water categories a small impact on the acidification of water bodies. For BPP unfortunately no data was available to perform the analysis. However, it is concluded that it has a similar impact than BPE in this category as the production is similar. In relation to TPM including fine particles, the conventional plastics take the highest share in this impact category, although BPE is the highest contributor to POCP, followed by LDPE and the rest of the polyolefins. This is the case as during production of FFDPs fine particles are created, whereas during agricultural production of the BDPs H+ions are released which lead to creation of ozone. In relation to the GWP100, conventional plastics emit a high amount of GHGs during their production phase, whilst their counterparts result in a negative GWP100 factor as their production processes lead to a lower emission of GHGs than their storage. Conventional plastics consume the most energy for their production, followed by corrugated paper. This is the case as the extraction and refinery of crude oil are energy intensive work steps. To produce corrugated board dewatering and steam production are energy intensive production processes. From the two BDPs, BPP needs more energy than BPE due to its chemical composition and manufacturing process. Overall, LLDPE has the lowest scores in all impact categories among the examined FFDPs. On the other hand, LDPE is the least favourable FFDP, having the most impact in the examined environmental categories. To sum it up, the LCAs have shown that the examined BDPs perform better than their counterparts, although not in all impact categories. Agricultural production for the raw material of the BDPs results at higher EP and POCP, due to the use of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers. The FFDPs on the other hand have a higher impact on the air, especially in 92

regard to fine particles, AP, energy and ADP. In this regard, BDPs have a higher impact on waterways in terms of acidification, but have a negative GWP100 as they store carbon. So, all in all the examined BDPs outperform their counterparts. Corrugated paper was the only biodegradable material examined, and has the most impact on waterbodies except for AP, whilst it performs well in the other environmental impact categories. The GWP100 is positive for corrugated paper as more energy is used and CO2 emitted during manufacturing than stored. Lastly, it can be stated that the publication of Tabone et al. (2010) has been falsified. These authors have developed a matrix, classifying polyolefins in ranks, and state that PP has the best rank, while LDPE and LLDPE have the same rank. The detailed analyses above have uncovered the contrary, with LLDPE having the best LCA performance and LDPE the worst. Furthermore, they elaborated in their paper that bio-based materials are outperformed by FFDPs. This has also been refuted by the analyses above.

93

8.)

Cost-Benefit Analysis

The task of a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is to compare all costs emerging within a system with the associated benefit of the material or product produced (Feess-Dörr et. al. 1991, 29). Benefits of a product need to be defined accordingly, and most often reflect the surplus of the benefit of a society. Techniques for evaluation are based on economic behaviour and decision-making, e.g. surveys, choice modelling or contingent valuation method (Atkinson & Mourato 2015, 8). An environmental CBA aims to increase the environmental benefits of a product, therefore decreasing the environmental footprint of a product, e.g. reuse components, use air filters and energy efficient machines (Atkinson & Mourato 2015, 7). Overall, a CBA is a tool for comparing the gains and losses of an investment project or policy in terms of social benefits and economic efficiency (Pearce 1998, 84). Social benefits are measured as subjective human wellbeing and reflect the willingness to pay for or to accept a new policy or an investment (Pearce 1998, 86f.). The willingness of pay and accept are derived in terms of gains and losses, and depend on the individual time preference of humans. Some individuals are present, and some are future orientated and thus for future benefits and costs a discount rate must be taken into account (Pearce 1998, 87). Gains of wellbeing reflect the preference the willingness of a subject to accept the compensation, or their willingness to pay for the gain (Pearce 1998, 87). Vice versa the loss of wellbeing reflects the willingness of a subject to accept the loss, or their willingness to pay to prevent the loss (Pearce 1998, 87). This reflects the welfare economy where the gainer will compensate the loser whilst, still making gains, and thus creating pareto efficiency (Pearce 1998, 85). As an example, how much is a landlord willing to pay to their tenant if the tenant decreases their rate of air pollution? Less air emissions benefit the landlord as less air emissions damage the house less and thus decrease the investment costs of the landlord. Such hypothetical questions are assumed to be similar in real-life situations for the application of CBA for decision makers (Atkinson & Mourato 2015, 9). This so-called contingent valuation has the advantage of being flexible and can be applied to all sorts of events, although respondents can bias the scenario with their individual preferences (Atkinson & Mourato 2015, 9). Furthermore, subjective wellbeing might differ by causality, as an individuals’ mood may differ throughout the day or throughout their life as they are influenced by different scenarios, such as environmental factors, contextual events, past

94

experiences and income. For example, happier people are more successful (Atkinson & Mourato 2015, 23). Because of these factors it is difficult to include the term of sustainability in a CBA, as the preferences of people change over time (Atkinson & Mourato 2015, 36). Generally, as subjective human wellbeing is used in a CBA it is hard to quantify the value of clean air, water and food, as well as intact eco-systems and biodiversity. In this regard the value of, for example, a whole ecosystem would be estimated to ranges between €3.655 and €17.17 trillion per year on the global scale (Atkinson & Mourato 2015, 34). Overall, costs and benefits are rarely known and are underlain with uncertainties, making them hard to quantify (Atkinson & Mourato 2015, 30). Furthermore, most often the long-term effects of a project or policy are left out of a CBA, so to say that the long-term sustainability effect would result in an outweigh of costs by benefits if it is included in the overall model of policy makers (Atkinson & Mourato 2015, 32). In the model below the traditional CBA is executed in a manner that applies the estimated environmental factors from above to each respective material. The outcome will be presented by the smallest total costs and the highest benefits. The goal is to find the total ecological price of each product based on their overall environmental performance, and to find out which waste management strategies are feasible for which product. The graphic below sums up the connection between the LCA and CBA. Here the LCA quantifies the environmental impact categories of a product during production. The CBA further includes these impact categories as costs, and evaluates the materials with the stated waste management strategies. Inventory

Environmental Category

Resources

ADP

NOX

AP

SOx

BOD

P N CH4 CO2 VOC

Total Costs/Benefit

COD EP GWP100 POCP

Economic Validation Environmental Validation Feasibility

TPM TOC

NH3

Figure 37 Connection between the LCA and CBA (Parker 2004, 7)

95

8.1.) Model In this section the quantitative model is introduced, examining the respective materials for the following categories: •

Costs,

•

Benefit,

•

Environmental impact categories,

•

Overall environmental damage,

•

Waste management strategies.

The model includes two types of packaging materials - reusable ones and disposable ones, which are either recycled or scrapped. The reusable materials are reused until they become obsolete, and then are treated as disposable ones according to the associated waste treatment strategies. Waste treatment strategies for obsolete products include incineration, energy production in a biomass plant, landfilling and recycling due to the composition of material in the developed model. In the model energy production with either biogas or incineration and landfilling have been summarized as scrapping costs. Furthermore, for ease of explanation materials are assumed to represent a container which is either looped from one facility to another or discarded after one life cycle. A lorry brings a full load of prefinished or finished goods in reusable containers and takes empty containers back to the facility. Disposed containers after their EoL are either used as secondary material, or for energy recovery purposes. Disposable PM follows the same pathway as the reusable PM, although it doesn’t follow the pathway of the SC as it is discarded after one cycle. It is assumed in the model that a certain ratio of both disposable and reusable PM is lost during transportation to the manufacturing or supplier plant, on the way to the waste treatment facility (WTF) or at the sites respectively. Reusable materials follow the circular model outlined in chapter 3.2. Here time is saved as products don’t need to be repacked and only the real transport time on the shop floor from inventory space i to production line j and then back to finished good area i with a supermarket Kanban or automatic guided vehicles must be considered. As already described in chapter 3.2. smart containers enable a circular economy with nearly infinite cycle times. Figure 38 depicts this described process.

96

Costs which are considered in the model include the material costs and their associated production costs, waste management costs, transport costs, inventory holding costs, energy costs and costs related to the environmental impact categories from the LCA. Using reusable packaging material leads to the following benefits, having less energy costs, material costs, environmental and pollution costs, less wasted time, less searching costs and less scrap. Nevertheless, transport costs may increase to additional weight of reusable containers and cleaning costs need to be included. However, no empty transport costs occur if the SC is efficiently being managed. Disposable packaging material incurs additional costs according to the type of waste management strategy. Waste management strategies include shredding, sorting and thermal processing, and energy and additional material costs are also associated with recycling. Overall it can be stated that the EoL costs of PM and the costs associated with disposable PM highly depend upon the type of transport, sort of waste treatment facility and mixture of composites used. Moreover, for the recycling process additional energy and resources need to be invested so that a new product can be created. Therefore, it is always necessary to analyse if more resources and emissions are produced during the recycling process which drive up the overall costs (Hopewell et al. 2008, 2116). Material which is going to be burned has an energy recovery rate, as electricity can be generated (Hopewell et al. 2008, 2116). This is the overall benefit of incineration. Biomass plants have two benefits which are compost and energy created through methane gas. Residues of both processes which may have to be landfilled aren’t considered in the model as their ratio is comparably small.

97

Figure 38 Cycle of Reusable and Non-reusable Packaging Material

Waste disposal costs include the externalities of environmental pollution of eco-systems by packaging material which is supposed to be scrapped, including the costs of untreated material in the environment. Furthermore, it also includes the externalities of damage to animals and marine life which consume the untreated litter and the endocrine substances of synthetic material and micro plastic. This in turn harms humans and animals which consume them. The costs of packaging material may be the minor compared to the products they carry. However, externality costs of the products and associated waste treatment may tremendously increase the overall costs of the PM. This may be uncovered in the chapter of the application of the model. Lastly, the included costs are explained in more details below. Externality Costs Externality costs include the environmental impact categories: ADP, AP, BOD, COD, EP, GWP100, POCP, TPM und TOC. Handling Costs Handling costs include the repacking processes of IGs as well as scanning and visual quality management and the wrapping of FGs.

98

Incineration Costs Incineration costs include the plant costs, energy cost, labour costs, GWP100 and filter costs for the flue gases, to release CO2 and water vapour in the end. Inventory Holding Costs Inventory costs include the costs of space needed for the appropriate number of packaging material in the facility. Landfilling Costs Landfilling costs include the fixed costs incurred when finding and preparing suitable land for landfilling sites, and costs associated with running the facility. Manufacturing Costs In the production of a good the raw material costs are included, as well as the production costs where energy, labour force, machines and plant costs are summed up. Pollution Costs Pollution costs include the costs of lost discarded material in the environment. This material can e.g. fall from a lorry during transport, or be blown away from residual bins by wind or from leak out of landfilling sites. Transport Costs Transport costs include the emitted emissions of a vehicle as well as vehicle obsolescence and driver costs incurred from the facility where the PM is being disposed to the waste management facility or between different suppliers and manufacturers.

99

8.2.) Notation m n

reusable packaging material non-reusable packaging material

Eci

externality costs for material i

Es

energy saving

o

biodegradable material

Erz

energy recovery

p

non-biodegradable material

Bc

costs of biomass plant

x

material to be reused

hc

inventory holding cost

y

material to be recycled

Tjk

moving time

z

material to be scrapped

Tr

repackaging time for y,z

Cru

cost for reuse

Ts

time saving

Cr

cost for recycling

Ru

total benefit from reusing

Cs

cost for scrap

Re

total benefit from recycling

Cm

material cost

Rs

total benefit from scrapping

Cp

production cost

gi

compost

Ch

cost for shredding

Cs

sorting cost

Ms

material saving

Cl

labour cost

Dc

disposal cost

Ct

transport costs (kg/km)

Cg

cost for thermal treatment

βn

lost parts of n

Ct

transport cost

αm

lost parts of m

Ce

energy cost

Mc

manufacturing costs

CR

cycle rate

Pc

pollution costs

Ic

incineration costs

Eck

Lc

landfilling costs

EPCi

costs eutrophication potential

GWPC100i

costs global warming potential

ADPCi APCi BODCi CODCi

costs abiotic depletion potential costs acidification potential costs biological organic compound costs chemical organic compound

POCPCi

agement

costs photochemical ozone creation potential

TPMCi

costs total particulate matter

TOCCi

costs total organic compound

Table 12 Notation

100

externality costs of waste man-

8.3.) Mathematical Formulation Reusing Costs The costs for reusing PM include the costs associated with the production of the product, including energy and material costs multiplied with the externality costs. These costs apply for all the material types which are suitable to be reused. At one of the centralised manufacturing plants there is a cleaning station established. Therefore, cleaning costs are included as well as inventory holding costs which are incurred at all manufacturing plants. Holding costs are envisioned as the full and empty containers that will be stored until their usage on the shop floor or until their pick up from a lorry. Transport costs are included for the transport of the full and empty containers between each of the plants. The costs for the reusable material are divided by the overall cycle time of the respective material. Once the reusable PM becomes obsolete it will automatically be considered as a material for recycling or scrapping. Cru=

∑

[

∗

∗

]

+𝛼 ∗ 𝑃

Recycling Costs The costs of recycling include the production costs of the material which is going to be recycled multiplied by the externality costs which arise during the recycling process and the transport costs to the respective plant. Furthermore, waste management costs which include the disposal, sorting and respective labour costs are included in the formula as well. Finally, the recycling costs comprise the shredding costs, the melting costs for the material, and inventory holding costs at the waste management treatment facility. The transport costs include the costs associated with transport of the PM to the plant, and from the plant to the waste management treatment facility. Cr=∑

[∑

[𝑀 ∗ 𝐸 ∗ 𝐶 + (𝐷 + 𝐶 + 𝐶 + 𝐶 + 𝐶 ) ∗ 𝐸

∗ 𝐶 + ℎ ]𝑦 +β𝑃

Scrapping Costs It is assumed that biodegradable and non-biodegradable material are binary, which reflects the assumption that biodegradable materials should neither be landfilled nor incinerated, but instead used in a biomass plant for energy production purposes.

101

The scrapping costs are differentiated between further types of waste management which are either incineration, landfilling or energy production through digestion. However, they also include the production costs multiplied with the externalities and waste management costs. Transport costs are included for bringing the PM to the plant and after obsolescence to the waste management treatment facility respectively. Cs=∑

[𝑀 ∗ 𝐸 ∗ 𝐶 + (𝐷 + 𝐶 + 𝐶 ) ∗ 𝐶 ∗ 𝐸 𝐼 ∗ 𝑜𝑝 + 𝐿 ∗ 𝑜𝑝 + 𝐵 ∗ 𝑜𝑝 ]𝑧+β𝑃

Benefits from Reusing A reusable container system brings the benefit of saving materials, energy, labour time and externalities. Ru=∑

[𝑇 + 𝐸 + 𝑀 ]𝑥

Benefits from Recycling Material recycling brings the benefit of saving materials, energy and externalities to a certain extent. Re=∑

[𝐸 + 𝑀 ]𝑦

Benefits from Scrapping Disposed materials which are being incinerated or biodegraded show benefits in regard to energy recovery or energy production. Moreover, biodegraded materials can be used as compost after digestion. Landfilling results only in additional costs without any benefits. Rs=∑

𝐸 +𝑔

Externality Costs Externality costs include environmental impact categories of the respective materials which are weighted with the costs of each category respectively. 𝐸 = 𝐴𝐷𝑃 + 𝐴𝑃 + 𝐵𝑂𝐷 + 𝐶𝑂𝐷 + 𝐸𝑃 + 𝐺𝑊𝑃

+ 𝑃𝑂𝐶𝑃 + 𝑇𝑃𝑀 + 𝑇𝑂𝐶

Incineration Costs Incineration costs include the GWP100 as well as the energy costs for the plant and all other plant costs. 𝐼 = 𝐶 + 𝐺𝑊𝑃

102

+𝑃

Landfilling Costs Landfilling costs include the GWP100 of arising CO2 emissions, and site costs. 𝐿 = 𝐺𝑊𝑃

+𝑃 +𝑆

Manufacturing Costs The manufacturing costs include the costs of raw materials or possible pre-finished goods, plant costs and further production costs. 𝑀 =𝐶 +𝐶 +𝑃 Time Saving The rate of time saving is hereby expressed as the movement of one good from the warehouse to the shop floor, and the amount of time saved as the product doesn’t need to be repacked, scanned and checked as it is contained in a smart container. The same applies for the finished goods which don’t need to be repacked if contained in a smart container. Ts=Tij-Tr Ratios To create an outcome of the costs and benefits the ratios are taken. Subtracting the costs from the benefits illustrates the net benefits. Therefore, Ru/c, Rr/c, Rs/c are the benefit/cost ratios of reusing, recycling and scrapping packaging material. Ru-c, Rr-c, Rs-c are the net benefit of reusing, recycling or scrapping packaging material, accordingly. They show the feasibility of a policy, if the costs outweigh the benefits. Cost-Benefit Analysis Model of Reusing Ru/c= ∑

Ru-c=∑

∑ [

∗

]

[

∗

]

[𝑇 + 𝐸 + 𝑀 ]𝑥 −

∗

∑

(

∗

∑

[

∗

∗

∗

) ]

+𝛼 ∗ 𝑃

Cost-Benefit Analysis Model of Recycling ∑

Ru/c= ∑

[∑

Ru-c=∑

[𝐸 + 𝑀 ]𝑦 − ∑

[

∗

∗

[

(

] )∗

[∑

∗

]

[𝑀 ∗ 𝐸 ∗ 𝐶 + (𝐷 + 𝐶 + 𝐶 + 𝐶 + 𝐶 ) ∗ 𝐸

∗𝐶 +

ℎ ]𝑦 +β𝑃

103

Cost-Benefit Analysis Model of Scrapping ∑

Rs/c= ∑

[

Rs-c=∑

𝐸 +𝑔−∑

∗

∗

(

)∗ ∗

∗

∗

∗

]

)

[𝑀 ∗ 𝐸 ∗ 𝐶 + (𝐷 + 𝐶 + 𝐶 ) ∗ 𝐶 ∗ 𝐸 𝐼 ∗ 𝑜𝑝 + 𝐿 ∗ 𝑜𝑝 + 𝐵 ∗

𝑜𝑝 ]𝑧+β𝑃

8.4.) Application The described and examined materials are applied to the developed mathematical model. In this model it is assumed that the synthetics can be used for KLTs, thus they are reusable. Furthermore, they are also calculated as disposable and thus are examined according to their incineration and recycling value. For their counterparts the same strategy will be applied, although they are assumed to be biodegradable. Only corrugated board is evaluated as a disposable product. Hence, the reusable policy won’t be applied for this product. The mathematical model isn’t applied for the whole SC of a product except for the case of two manufacturing plants. The circular model only works if takt times are well coordinated so that no empty transport occurs. Otherwise time is lost. Thus, transport and time are volatile factors. For the circular model 100km are assumed with a transport time of one hour between two consecutive plants. Cleaning of KLTs is centralised and performed just at one plant. For the linear model 50kms are assumed between a waste treatment plant (incineration, landfilling or biogas facility) and a manufacturing or supplying plant. Respectively a transport time of 30 minutes is assumed. Transport costs are based on the standard delivery costs of international trade. The environmental impact of transport can be quantified and generally applied for each of the materials. For the waste treatment types, this is not the case, as a variety of materials are either used for biogas production, incineration or landfilling. The main impact category for the EoL policies is GWP100 which is weighted with the current CO2 prices of the European Trading Scheme (ETS). The overall goal of the application is uncovering the material with the highest share of benefits whilst having the lowest overall costs for a feasible waste management strategy.

104

The table below sums up the materials which are calculated in the different product categories. Product Category

Material

Reusable Packaging Material

PE, PP, BPP, BPE

Non-Reusable Packaging Material

PE, PP, BPP, BPE, Corrugated Paper

Biodegradable Material

Corrugated Paper, BPP, BPE

Non-Biodegradable Material

PE, PP

Material to be Recycled

PE, PP, BPP, BPE, Corrugated Paper Table 13 Product Category

Transport is carried out by a diesel truck weighting 20 tonnes. For transport the environmental impact categories and costs are the same for each material. The table below quantifies the environmental impact categories of AP, POCP, GWP100, EP and BOD using the weights used by Parker (2004) and Özkan et al. (2016). The actual costs are derived from Kim & Chae (2016). The transport costs are measured in €/km. Impact Category

Costs (€/kg)

Transport (€/km)

AP

7.85

0.00000611

POCP

316.72

0.04117

GWP100

0.12

0.0948

EP

3.73

0.0003525

BOD

24

0.1493

Total

0.2853 Table 14 Environmental Impact Costs for Transport

Table 14 displays the costs which are derived from existing facilities. The energy price is the current average price of the European Union, including taxes and grid price as well as the feeding price for electricity from the incineration or biogas plants. Sorting, shredding, thermal treatment costs, as well as recycling and incineration costs, are derived from European waste treatment facilities. The CO2 price is based on the European Trading scheme. Labour costs consist on the prices of the European logistic market, building an average price for truck and warehouse operators. Unloading/loading times are derived from real-time observations. The time savings are based on the real-time measurements of the described plants in the smart container chapter. Inventory holding costs are measured as 20-30% of the value of the materials. Cleaning costs include costs associated with water, detergents and energy consumption, as well as necessary 105

space and loading costs. New machines have circular water systems and heat exchangers, making them efficient. Costs Description

Costs

Costs Description

Costs

Sorting/Shredding Cost

0.0003€/kg

Carbon Prize

0.005€/kg

Thermal treatment Cost

0.0723€/kg

Unloading/Loading Time

2 mins/item

Recycling Cost

3.40€/kg

Saved Time

3.54 mins/item

Energy Cost

0.12€/kWh

Inventory Holding Cost

0.15€/kg

Cycle Rate

217

Transport Cost

0.002 kg/km

Landfilling Cost

0.01563 €/kg

Cleaning Cost

0.009/item

Incineration Cost

0.0953€/kg

Feeding Prize Energy

0.05 €/kWh

Labour Cost

20€/h

Biogas (1m3)

2.0207 kWh

Table 15 State-of-the art Costs

Table 16 lists the current prices in Euro for one kg of the examined materials.

Price (€/kg)

PE

PP

BPE

BPP

Corrugated Paper

0.64

0.66

1.30

0.92

0.30

Table 16 Material Costs

The following ratios for EoL treatment policies are derived from current global disposal strategies, and also include the environmental pollution ratios. Plastics

Bio-Plastics

Corrugated Paper

Reusable

Yes

Yes

No

Recycling

9%

12%

58%

Incinerated

12%

30%

30%

Landfilled

79%

24%

6%

Composted

No

24%

6%

Environment

32%

2%

5%

Table 17 Ratios of End-of-Life Treatment

Table 18 represents the CO2 emissions which arise from different EoL strategies. Bio-plastics are considered to have a ratio of 30% biomaterial, whereas corrugated board has a ratio of 70% biomaterial. This assumption is being made to separate the application of corrugated paper from the BDPs which are actually not biodegradable.

106

Biomaterial

Biomaterial

(30%)

(70%)

0.548

-

-

Kg CO2 eq.

0,794

0,007

0,007

Landfilling

Kg CO2 eq.

0,002

0,292

0,918

Composting

Kg CO2 eq.

-

-0,074

-0,064

Method

Unit

Plastic

Recycling

Kg CO2 eq.

Incineration

Table 18 GHG Emissions through Different Disposal Strategies (Garrain et al. 2007, 8)

Table 19 represents the harm both to the environment and humanity posed by certain types of pollution which are then quantified in costs. They account for the base year 2015 and include the percentage of the global GDP. These total costs account for one year. They are applied as the pollution costs according to the ratio of the waste management strategy of the materials accordingly. Costs

GDP

GHG Emissions

$ 4,987 billion

6.7%

Air Pollution

$ 5,322 billion

7.2%

Chemicals

$ 480 billion

0.4%

General Waste

$ 216 billion

0.3%

€ 11.05 billion

0.0154%

1.11 billion

0.00154%

Plastic Pollution to Marine Life Plastics Pollution to Ships, Tourism, Fishing

Table 19 Pollution Costs (UNEP 2017, II; Morlet et al. 2016, 29)

The following environmental impact categories are weighted in the application: AP, POCP, GWP100, EP and Energy with the outcome of the LCAs. The weights of the impact categories are taken from Özkan et al. (2016) and Parker (2004), although Parker (2004) developed slightly higher weights. They comprise the most important environmental impact categories of air and water pollution.

107

Impact

Costs

Costs

Costs

Category

(€/kg)

BPE

BPP

AP

0.033755

0.031

-

0.004161

0.0001742

0.0002141

0.76013

-

-

0.12

0.234

0.2316

-0.3

-0.03

0.0588

EP

3.73

0.006714

0.00485

0.06341

-

0.01323

BOD

24

-

-

0.14664

TPM

0.73

0.003124

0.003181

-

-

0.00000737

Energy

0.12

2.592

2.69

0.97

1.4

1.5937

2.6402

2.9637

1.5245

1.37

1.8165

Costs PP

Costs PE

7.85

0.03611

POCP

316.72

GWP

0.00005784 0.00005712

Total

Corrugated Paper

Table 20 Weighted Environmental Impact Categories

The benefits of incineration are measured in MJ as the net calorific value (NCV). The figures are derived from the World Energy Council. They are calculated with the current feeding price of the EU which is calculated in €/kWh. Material

Value Unit

Net Calorific Value

Feeding

Price

(€/kWh) Corrugated Paper

MJ/kg

16

0.2223

Plastics

MJ/kg

35

0.4861

PE

MJ/kg

41

0.5694

PP

MJ/kg

40

0.5556

BPE

MJ/kg

29.7

0.4125

Table 21 Net Calorific Values for Incineration (World Energy Council 2016, 8; Ren 2003, 30)

Overall, it can be stated that corrugated paper has a lower NCV than plastics, like wood, although it requires less energy in the production process resulting in a positive energy balance (Davis & Song 2006, 153). Plastics have a high NCV, nearly higher than that of coal. The value of BPE is also quite high. The numbers in the tables above will be applied to the mathematical model and calculated accordingly. The ratios will show which policy for which material is feasible, and which material will be best suited.

108

8.5.) Results For the policy of reusability, the costs represent the formula of the mathematical model. Here the costs of the material, the respective transport, the environment, as well as cleaning costs and inventory holding costs are included. The outcome is divided by the CT of KLTs. Furthermore, pollution costs are added and multiplied by the respective ratio. For the other policies the formulas from the above developed mathematical model account for the further calculations. The table below sums up the total costs of each examined material and associated waste disposal strategy. PE

PP

BPE

BPP

Corrugated Paper

Reusing

4.7464

4.7457

1.0888

1.0891

-

Recycling

45.2131

45.4137

40.52554

40.55354

39.88404

Incinerating

41.6831

42.03368

37.1455

37.1735

36.504

Composting

-

-

36.91551

36.51263

36.27401

Table 22 Total Costs

The main cost drivers for the analysis are transport and the environmental pollution costs, as well as energy costs. The rate of reusability extremely decreases the costs of the materials used. For plastics the costs associated with the reusable policy are ten times smaller than those associated with other policies; for the bio-based plastics the costs are even 40 times smaller. The difference here lies in the ratio of environmental pollution costs. For recycling, all materials are based in the same costs range, although corrugated board has the lowest costs for recycling and all other disposal strategies. For incineration the two examined plastics are in the same cost range along with the three bio-based materials. It can be summed up that the conventional plastics have the highest total costs for all EoL strategies, where PE is slightly more expensive than PP, although in the field of incineration it is the other way around. From the bio-based materials corrugated paper has the lowest costs associated with its use. BPE is always slightly cheaper in all total costs when compared to BPP.

109

The benefits are mainly the costs and pollution savings which occur through different disposal strategies. Table 23 displays the total benefits for each material and EoL strategy. PE

PP

BPE

BPP

Corrugated Paper

9.6105

9.8271

8.4877

8.5179

-

0.2998

0.3179

0.27504

0.2784

1.0983

0.06833

0.0667

0.1238

0.1238

0.06669

-

-

0.02425

0.002425

0.00060621

Reusable Recycling Incineration Composting

Table 23 Total Benefits

Despite plastics having the highest total costs they also have the highest benefit for the reusability strategy, while PP has a higher benefit than PE, although the costs are showing the opposite. From the bio-based plastics BPP also has a higher benefit than BPE. Overall, all materials in the reusability sector lie in the same range. For the recycling policy corrugated board is observed to have the highest benefit, although it is eight times lower than the highest score in the field of reusability. The BDPs have the lowest benefit in this policy, followed by their counterpart PP. They are in the same range as similar assumptions were made for both BDPs, whereas PE has slightly a higher score than PP. All in all, BPE has a four times lower benefit than corrugated paper. The benefit of incineration is quite low for all categories, although the BDPs have a higher score than their counterparts the FFDPs. In this category both BDPs achieve the same score because of a lack of data. PE, PP and corrugated board lie in the same range, while PE has the highest benefit among the three and corrugated board has the lowest. Composting is the least favoured policy, whereas the BDPs have the same values owing to the lack of data. However, the benefit observed here is four times higher than that measured for corrugated paper. Overall, it can be stated that the benefits of the materials deviate from the costs. For the reusable policy, plastics have the highest total costs associated with them, but also have the highest calculated benefits. Both PEs have a slightly lower benefit than the PPs. The cost benefit ratios are formed either from the division of total benefits by total costs, showing which material is best suited for which policy. The net ratios calculated by subtracting the benefits from the costs show the economic feasibility of each policy.

110

Reusable Recycling Incineration

PE

PP

BPE

BPP

2.02475966

2.07072056

7.79507027

7.82098031

0.00663179

0.007

0.00678683

0.006865

0.02753848

0.00163923

0.00158616

0.00333149

0.00332898

0.00182692

0.00065686 0.000066411

0.000016712

Composting

Corrugated Paper

Table 24 Benefit-Cost Ratio

For the reusable policy BPP is the best suited material followed by BPE. From the FFDPs PP has a slightly better ratio than PE, although both are nearly four times lower than their counterparts. For recycling corrugated board has the best ratio. All plastics lie in the same range, although PP performs slightly better than the other three materials. PE has the lowest ratio in the recycling policy followed by its counterpart. Nevertheless, all polymers lie in the same range. For incineration BPE has the best ratio, followed by BPP. Here corrugated paper, PE and PP all have a similar benefit-cost ratio. However, corrugated paper slightly outperforms the plastics, while PP has the worst ratio. For the composting policy BPE has again the best ratio, while corrugated board has the worst. In summary, the plastic derivates show similar ratios, although the PPs outperform the PEs. Only in terms of incineration and composting BPE does have the best ratio.

PE Reusable

Recycling

Incineration Composting

PP

4.86400467 5.08136815

-44.913296

-41.614772

45,0958238 -41.967008

BPE

BPP

7.39886259

7.42884333

-40.2505

-40.27514

-38.785694

-37.02175

-37.04975

-36.43731

-36.8912616 -36.5102052

Corrugated Paper

-36.2734038

Table 25 Net Benefit-Cost Ratio

111

All in all, reusability is the only feasible policy for all materials when environmental impact and pollution costs are compared to the overall benefit. For all other policies corrugated board seems to be the most promising material, although these policies shouldn’t be used as environmental and human damage are higher than the benefit. Furthermore, the BDPs perform better than their counterparts, with BPE having a slightly higher score than BPP, which differs in the composting and reusable scenario. Lastly, it can be stated that the policies of incineration and composting need to be remodelled. For the application of the model there wasn’t sufficient data available, as only the GWP100 was included and not the other environmental impact categories. Additionally, the weighting ratios for pollution have a high impact on the costs of the materials respectively.

112

9.)

Implications

The following implications can be taken from the analysis: •

A closed loop system is resource efficient, enables standardization and decreases total costs,

•

Bio-based polymers are more suitable than polymers based on non-renewable resources,

•

Reusability is the only feasible solution in terms of total costs/benefits.

Therefore, the assumption of this book, that a circular system enabling reusability is beneficial for the economy, environment and human beings, can be stated as correct. Moreover, it is also correct that bio-based materials outperform their counterparts based on non-renewable resources. Resource efficiency is being gained at least for the examined tertiary packaging materials. In this regard, the outcome backs up the work of many other authors such as Hekkert et al. (2000), Hopewell et al. (2009), Morlet et al. (2016), and other papers. Weighting of the environmental impact categories with the associated costs has been performed based on existing papers. Nevertheless, these weights may change the calculation totally, despite not changing the outcome as their impact on the overall costs is relatively small. Overall, corrugated board has the most impact on waterways, being shown by the environmental impact categories such as TOC, BOD and COD. However, the examined BDPs have the highest impact on EP and POCP as they are agricultural products. The examined FFDPs have significantly an impact on air including fine particles. According to the United Nations air pollution is the second greatest cause of damage to humanity in terms of monetary costs after GHG emissions which are also high for the manufacturing process of synthetic polymers (UNEP 2017, II). Moreover, the examined conventional plastics have the highest usage of ADP, energy and GWP100. As bio-based materials have a negative GWP100 they are most suited for mitigating climate change. Therefore, it has been found that the examined bio-based materials outperform their counterparts not only in the environmental impact categories but also in the CBA. However, this can only be stated in regard to the current production design. Production with other plants such as corn or wheat and in different locations may result in other figures. However, using alternative growing methods which use less chemicals may lead to better results in terms of EP and POCP. This also accounts for the production design of corrugated paper as bio-based materials are generally sensitive to geographical and plant changes. 113

All in all, BPP performs better not only in the LCA but also in the CBA than BPE. For the polyolefins LLDPE is the best suited material out of those examined, followed by PP and HDPE, while LDPE has the lowest score at least in the LCA. In the CBA PP outperforms PE which makes it a suitable candidate for the material of smart containers on a nonrenewable basis. On a renewable basis BPP is best suited for the smart container system. The outcome of the CBA is highly being influenced by the ratios of the different waste management strategies and the associated pollution costs of lost materials. Here a sensitivity analysis can be performed for, examining different outcomes of the model. All in all, the policies of incineration and composting need to be remodelled as there was insufficient data available for the other environmental impact categories for the plant modelling. Nevertheless, EoL strategies have mainly had an impact on the footprint of CO2 which was included in the CBA. It can however be stated that the incineration of mixed plastics is the most economical solution due to the difficulty of mechanical recycling of composites and their high NCV. For corrugated paper, recycling is the best suited policy, although it is not feasible as the overall costs outperform the overall benefit. Here a change of the model is necessary, showing that this policy is feasible for corrugated paper. The outcome of composting reflects a feasible solution as paper isn’t well suited for composting and the two BDPs have been assumed to be compostable. This research has outlined that a circular system with smart containers out of bio-based materials is best suited in terms of total costs, resource efficiency and environmental and human damage in terms of production and waste management. The standardization of a few materials supports the problem of waste management and enables resource efficiency. Moreover, less parts are lost in the environment if a looped system is enabled. However, this book has focused only on the most used materials in the tertiary packaging industry, being backed up by the bio-based counterparts. There are more materials which may be even better suited. Current global trends in PM go in the opposite direction to the results of this publication. Packaging material created out of non-renewable materials are extensively growing while biobased alternatives remain unknown in the tertiary packaging market. Additionally, resource efficiency decreases, while consumption and environmental degradation increase. Here a comprehensive change needs to happen to not only because of decreasing costs and raising resource efficiency, but to also lower both environmental and human damage. 114

10.) Further Research Further research mainly needs to be conducted in the following fields: •

The examination of other materials in terms of environmental impact categories and waste management strategies,

•

To further elaborate the LCA,

•

To further examine and model the waste management strategies.

As only packaging materials in industry-to-industry processes have been examined, the list can be extended to other promising materials to encompass a broad and comparable overview. Not only synthetic materials such as PE or PP, but also biodegradable materials suitable for packaging such as hemp, silver grass, flax, jute and others can be included in the analysis, as they have a better tensile strength than FFDPs and are lighter and totally biodegradable (Mohanty et al. 2002, 24). Another material focus can lie in other bio-based and biodegradable polymers such as TPS, PHA and PLA. Nevertheless, extensive field work must still be started as most of the stated raw materials haven’t been introduced as PM yet. The analysis can be performed not only on uncompounded resin and raw material but also on actual packaging materials. This standardization can include the waste management options already used in the LCA. Additionally, weight comparisons of FGs make the application of the model more realistic. Moreover, the model can be extended with a cost analysis of MRFs and include the quantification of the environmental impact categories of these waste treatment types. A sensitivity analysis can be performed by playing with the ratios of the waste treatment policies of the materials as well as with the ratios of lost parts in the environment and the associated environmental costs. Furthermore, LUC may have a deceiving impact on the results of LCAs. Therefore, they can be further examined with the respective materials. Utilising actual results of the cycle rates of KLTs and not only estimated ones, long-term research can be conducted, into the cycle of KLTs in various fields of industry. Moreover, applying the analysis to the B2C sector will lead to different results and different feasibilities, and ultimately to the extension of the model. The assumptions made should also be examined in regard to the feasibility of the logistic model itself, especially regarding depots and the transport of the returnable containers with a network of multiple plants. On a

115

macroeconomic level the consequences of changing a disposal towards into a reusable system need to be examined, especially in regard to the economic political behaviour, industry and commerce as well as prices incurred by consumers and the losses incurred by work places. Moreover, it also crucial to analyse the socio-economic behaviour of consumers. Further research can examine regulatory and market orientated measures which can then be included in this model. Hence, it is crucial to examine and compare regulatory measures on a global scale and retrieve methods of best practices Furthermore, the impact of eco taxes on packaging material as well as producer liability are interesting market orientated approaches to be examined. A tax on disposable packaging could lead to the reduction of its use towards the paretoefficient level, and would elicit marginal environmental improvement. Certificates can lead like fees to the pareto-efficient internalisation of externalities. Finally, another contribution factor to be examined are aesthetics. Is a refinery and an oil extraction field more aesthetic than a potato field, or is a potato field more aesthetic than a forest? These questions could lead towards a shift from fossil fuel-based PM towards renewable resource-based PM. Nevertheless, this approach is more survey-orientated and leads to a complexity of decision making as consumer behaviour may change over time. As can be seen there is a lot of more research which can be conducted in the field of tertiary PM and PM in general, regarding circularity, resource efficiency and environmental improvement.

116

Appendix

1

Figure 39 Production Statistic of Small Load Carrier 1992-2011

117

Appendix

2

Figure 40 Characteristics of Examined Materials

118

Appendix

3

119

Figure 41 Complete Overview of Environmental Impact Categories of Materials

120

References Anissimova M. (2015), Production of Bio-Propylene by Fermentation, Global Bioenergies. Astrup, T., Fruergaard, T., & Christensen, T. H. (2009), Recycling of plastic: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste management & research, 27(8), 763-772. Atkinson, G., & Mourato, S. (2015), Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. OECD Environment Working Papers, (97), 0_1. Auer (2017), KLT description, found on: https://www.auer-packaging.com, lastly checked on 19th February 2018. Baumann, H., & Tillman, A. M. (2004), The Hitch Hiker's Guide to LCA. An orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application, Lund Studentliteratur AB. BioFoam (2011), report, found on: http://www.synbratechnology.com/biofoam/, lastly checked on 20th December 2017. Bioplastics, E. (2015), Bioplastics facts and figures. Bissiri M., Eisfeld L., Geerlings M., Iino F., Iti Ozunimi, Miller A., Prosvirova Y., Koster M., Pasqualetto G., Thampi S., Wu Jiani, Wald C. (Editor) (2016), Making it Green, Department of Environment, United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Vienna. Bohlmann, G. M. (2004), Biodegradable packaging life‐cycle assessment. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 23(4), 342-346. Boustead, I. (2005), High Density Polyethylene (HDPE). Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry. Performed by Boustead for PlasticsEurope, Brussels, Belgium. Braskem (2014), Green Polyethylene, found on: http://www.braskem.com/Portal/Principal/Arquivos/Download/Upload/COM-17-QR%20Catalogo_PE%20Verde_2017_ING_229.pdf, lastly checked on 12th December 2017. Chen R. W., Dundee N. C., Prinz F.B (1994), A cost-benefit analysis model of product design for recyclability and its application. IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging, and Manufacturing Technology: Part A Vol. 17. No. 4, 502-507. Chen, G. Q., & Patel, M. K. (2011), Plastics derived from biological sources: present and future: a technical and environmental review. Chemical reviews, 112(4), 2082-2099. CPA (2010), Corrugated Packaging Life-cycle Assessment Summary Report, Corrugated Packaging Alliance. Davis, G., & Song, J. H. (2006), Biodegradable packaging based on raw materials from crops and their impact on waste management. Industrial crops and products, 23(2), 147-161. Dolfin (2006), Development of innovative plastic structures for agriculture using a new composite with crop waste as reinforcing filler, Final Activity Report. Dyckhoff H., Souren R., Keilen J. (2004), The expansion of Supply Chains to Closed Loop Systems: A conceptual framework and the automotive industry’s point of view, in: 121

Supply Chain Management and Reverse Logistics, Dyckhoff H. (Hrsg.), Lackes R.(Hrsg.), Reese J (Hrsg.), Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 13-34. Ecoinvent (2018), databank, found on: https://www.ecoinvent.org/, lastly checked on 10th February 2018. ELCD (2018), found on: http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ELCD3/, lastly checked on 22th January 2018. Embree K. (2016), Global plastics packaging market to hit $ 375 billion by 2020, article found on: https://www.plasticstoday.com/packaging/global-plastics-packaging-markethit-375-billion-2020/23800481624973, lastly checked on 10th January 2018. EPA (2015), Waste reduction Model, found on: https://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/warm/pdfs/Plastics.pdf, lastly checked on 15th February 2018. ETS (2017), European Trading Scheme, found on: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en, lastly checked on 22nd September 2017. EU (2006), Directive 2006/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 5th April 2006 on Waste, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. EU (2017), Energy Data and analysis by country, found on: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/data-analysis/country, lastly checked on 14th February 2018. Eurostat (2016), Recycling rates for packaging waste, found on: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=ten0 0063&language=en, lastly checked on 30th December 2017. Fefco, G. E. (2015), European database for corrugated board life cycle studies. European Federation of Corrugated Board Manufacturers, European Association of Makers of Corrugated Base Papers & Organisation. FAO (2015), The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. Food and Agriculture Organization Publications, Rome. Feess-Dörr E., Steger U., Weihrauch P. (1991), Muß Verpackung Abfall sein? – Strategien zur Reduktion der Umweltbelastungen durch Einwegverpackungen, Institut für Ökologie und Unternehmensführung e.V. European Business School, Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany. Fleischmann M., Bloemhof- Ruwaard J. M., Dekker K., van der Laan E., van Nuen J. A. E. E., van Wassenhove L. N. (1997), Quantitative Models for reverse logistics: A review. FMI (2014), report, found on: https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/details/globalbio-plastics-market. lastly checked on 15th December 2017. Frees N. (2002), Miljømæssige fordele og ulemper ved genvinding af plast (Environmental advantages and disadvantages of plastic recycling, in Danish). Miljøprojekt nr. 657, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.

122

Friess P., Riemenschneider R. (2016), IoT eco-systems implementing smart technologies to drive innovation for future growth and development, in: Internet of Things Connecting the Physical, Digital and Virtual Worlds, pages 4-13, Vermesan O. (Ed.) and Friess P. (Ed.), River Publishers Series in Communication, Volume 49, Delft, Netherlands. Garms A. (2017), Plastik Welt, found on: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/plastikmenschen-haben-mehr-als-8-milliarden-tonnen-produziert-a-1158676.html, lastly checked on 25th January 2018. Garraín, D., Vidal, R., Martínez, P., Franco, V., & González, R. (2007), How ‘green’are biopolymers. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED (Vol. 7). Govindan K., Soleimani H., Kannan D. (2015), Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chain: A comprehensive review to explore the future. European Journal of Operational Research, 240(3), 603-626. GaBi (2018), databank, found on: http://lcdn.thinkstep.com/Node/index.xhtml?stock=default, lastly checked on 22nd January 2018. Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017), Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science advances, 3(7). Global Footprint Network , found on: http://www.overshootday.org/why-past-earthovershoot-day-dates-keep-changing/ lastly checked on 14th November 2017. Greene, J. P. (2014), Environmental issues. Sustainable Plastics: Environmental Assessments of Bio based, Biodegradable, and Recycled Plastics, 15-50. Gregory M. R. (1999), Plastic and South Pacific Island shores: environmental implications, Ocean and Coastal Management 42 603-615, Elsevier. Gregory M. R. (2009), Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings— entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 2013-2025. Hekkert, M. P., Joosten, L. A., & Worrell, E. (1999), Reduction of CO2 emissions by improved management of material and product use: the case of transport packaging. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 30(1), 1-27. Hekkert, M. P., Joosten, L. A., Worrell, E., & Turkenburg, W. C. (2000), Reduction of CO2 emissions by improved management of material and product use: the case of primary packaging. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 29(1), 33-64. Hekkert, M. P., Gielen, D. J., Worrell, E., & Turkenburg, W. C. (2001), Wrapping Up Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Assessment of GHG Emission Reduction Related to Efficient Packaging Use, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5(1), 55-75. Hermansson, F. (2013), Environmental evaluation of bio-composites using LCA. Master's Thesis, Dept. of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden. Hoornweg, D., & Bhada-Tata, P. (2012), What a waste: a global review of solid waste management; World Bank report. 123

Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., & Kennedy, C. (2013), Environment: Waste production must peak this century. Nature, 502(7473), 615. Hottle, T. A., Bilec, M. M., & Landis, A. E. (2013), Sustainability assessments of bio-based polymers. Polymer Degradation and Stability, 98. Hrauda, G., Jasch, C., Puchinger, V., & Rubik, V. (1993). Ökobilanzen von Packstoffen in Theorie und Praxis-eine Iststandserhebung. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie, Schriftenreihe Institut für ökologische Wirtschftsprüfung Band 1, Wien. IfBB (2016), Processing of Bioplastics -a guideline, Institute for Bioplastics and Biocomposites, Hannover University of Applied Sciences and Arts. Jonas U. (2017), So nimmt jeder täglich eine bedenkliche Menge Plastik zu sich, ohne es zu merken, found on: http://www.huffingtonpost.de/2017/11/26/so-nimmt-jeder-taglicheine-bedenkliche-menge-plastik-zu-sich---ohne-es-zu-wissen-_n_18654706.html, lastly checked on 25th January 2018. Kershaw, P. J. (2016), Marine plastic debris and microplastics–Global lessons and research to inspire action and guide policy change. Kim, T. H., & Chae, C. U. (2016), Environmental impact analysis of acidification and eutrophication due to emissions from the production of concrete. Sustainability, 8(6), 578. Koffler D. (1990), Verpackung- Ökologische und ökonomische Argumente stehen einander gegenüber: Vermeiden, Vernichten und Recycling. Das „Mittel zum Zweck“ist zum gesellschaftspolitischen Thema unserer Zeit geworden, Wolf in der Maur (Ed.), htpVerlagsgesellschaft, Wien. Kroon, L., & Vrijens, G. (1995), Returnable containers: an example of reverse logistics. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 25(2), 56-68. Krzan A. (2012), Biodegradable polymers and plastics, Innovative value chain development for sustainable plastics in Central Europe. Kumar P. (2016), Green Plastic: A new plastic for Packaging, International Journal for Engineering sciences and Research technology 5(9), 168-173. Lee, S. G., & Xu, X. (2004), A simplified life cycle assessment of re‐usable and single‐use bulk transit packaging. Packaging Technology and Science, 17(2), 67-83. Liptow, C., & Tillman, A. M. (2012), A comparative life cycle assessment study of polyethylene based on sugarcane and crude oil. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(3), 420435. Loidl D. (1987), Kunststoffe in der Verpackungstechnik, Österreichisches Verpackungszentrum im Wirtschaftsförderungsinstitut der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft, 5. Auflage, Wien. Lorenzen M. (2013), In unserem Blut fließt Plastik; found on: http://www.wiwo.de/technologie/forschung/bisphenol-a-in-unserem-blut-fliesstplastik/9002916.html lastly checked on 25th January 2018. Marketreports (2015), Sustainable Packaging Market by Material (Paper & Paperboard, Plastic, Metal, Glass), Process (Recycled, Reusable, Degradable), Function (Active, 124

Molded Pulp, Alternate Fiber), Application (Food & Beverage, Healthcare, Others) & Layer - Global Forecast to 2020, found on: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/MarketReports/sustainable-packaging-market-177372752.html, lastly checked on 10th January 2018. MA 48 (2013), Waste to Energy- Treatment of Residual Waste, City of Vienna. McArthur, E. (2013), Towards the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23-44. McArthur, D. E., Waughray, D., & Stuchtey, M. R. (2016), The New Plastics Economy, Rethinking the Future of Plastics, World Economic Forum. Mistry H., McCafferty M., Yennigalla E., Thorne S., Foster J. (2016), Global Polyolefins Outlook-Executive Summary 2014-2026, S&P Global, Platts Analytics. Mohanty, A. K., Misra, M., & Drzal, L. T. (2002), Sustainable bio-composites from renewable resources: opportunities and challenges in the green materials world. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 10(1-2), 19-26. Morlet, A., Blériot, J., Opsomer, R., Linder, M., Henggeler, A., Bluhm, A., & Carrera, A. (2016). Intelligent Assets: Unlocking the Circular Economy Potential. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. MRR (2017), Bio-based Polypropylene (PP) Market Analysis by Application (Injection, Textile, Films), by Region (North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Rest of the World), and Segment Forecasts, 2014 – 2025, Market Research Report. MVA (2018), Clean Energy from Viennese waste, Müllverbrennungsanlage Pfaffenau, Umweltzentrum Simmering. Nilsson, H. E., Unander, T., Siden, J., Andersson, H., Manuilskiy, A., Hummelgard, M., & Gulliksson, M. (2012), System integration of electronic functions in smart packaging applications. IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging and Manufacturing Technology, 2(10), 1723-1734. Nobre, G. C., Tavares E. (2017), Scientific literature analysis on big data and internet of things applications on circular economy: a bibliometric study. Scientometrics 111.1, 463492. Özkan, A., Günkaya, Z., Tok, G., Karacasulu, L., Metesoy, M., Banar, M., & Kara, A. (2016), Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis of magnesia spinel brick production. Sustainability, 8(7), 662. Pearce, D. (1998), Cost benefit analysis and environmental policy. Oxford review of economic policy, 14(4), 84-100. Page A. (2011), Pira Futures Forecast- plastic packaging, presentation, Nice France, 2011:,found on: https://www.slideshare.net/adampage1976/plastic-packaging-markettrends-and-forecasts, lastly checked on 29th December 2017. Page A. (2017), Future Packaging Trends 2017, presentation 2017, found on: https://pt.slideshare.net/adampage1976/future-packaging-trends-2017-from-smithers-pira, lastly checked on 29th December 2017.

125

Parker G. (2004), Costs and Benefits: using Life Cycle Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis to measure the environmental effectiveness of waste regulation Pira IWM & LCA Workshop, 2004, found on: http://slideplayer.com/slide/7870203/, lastly checked on 30th December 2017. Pesta O. (1972), Verrottbare Kunststoff-Typen für Verpackungen, Österreichisches Produktivitäts-Zentrum, Wien. Pikoń, K. (2012), Abiotic depletion in energy and waste management systems. Polityka Energetyczna, 15, 87-101. PlasticsEurope (2007), Kunststoff, Werkstoff des 21. Jahrhunderts. PlasticsEurope (2007a), Verpackung-bestens schützen mit immer weniger Materialeinsatz. PlasticsEurope (2014), Eco-profiles and Environmental Product Declarations of the European Plastics Manufacturers: Polypropylene (PP). PlasticsEurope (2016), Plastics-the Facts 2016. PlasticsEurope (2016a), Eco-profiles and Environmental Product Declarations of the European Plastics Manufacturers: High-density Polyethylene (HDPE), Low-density Polyethylene (LDPE), Linear Low-density Polyethylene (LLDPE). Ren, X. (2003), Biodegradable plastics: a solution or a challenge?, Journal of cleaner Production, 11(1), 27-40. Ross, S., & Evans, D. (2003), The environmental effect of reusing and recycling a plasticbased packaging system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(5), 561-571. Sathre, R. (2007), Life-cycle Energy and Carbon Implications of Woodbased Products and Construction. Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Mid Sweden University, Ôstersund, Sweden. Scipioni, A., Manzardo, A., Mazzi, A., & Mastrobuono, M. (2012), Monitoring the carbon footprint of products: a methodological proposal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 36, 94101. Shah, A. A., Hasan, F., Hameed, A., & Ahmed, S. (2008), Biological degradation of plastics: a comprehensive review. Biotechnology advances, 26(3), 246-265. Song, J. H., Murphy, R. J., Narayan, R., & Davies, G. B. H. (2009), Biodegradable and compostable alternatives to conventional plastics. Philosophical transactions of the royal society B: Biological sciences, 364(1526), 2127-2139. Šprajcar, M., Horvat, P., & Kržan, A. (2012), Biopolymers and bioplastics: Plastics aligned with nature. Ljubljana: National Institute of Chemistry. Steinhilper R. (1998), Remanufacturing the ultimate Form of Recycling, Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany. Schrot & Korn (2017), Weihnachten genießen, bioverlag, Aschaffenburg, Germany, 12/2017. Sheavly, S. B., & Register, K. M. (2007), Marine debris & plastics: environmental concerns, sources, impacts and solutions. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 15(4), 301305. 126

SmithersPira (2016), Packaging material outlooks – towards a $1 trillion milestone in 2020, found on: https://www.smitherspira.com/resources/2016/february/global-packagingmaterial-outlooks, lastly checked on 10th January 2018. Stuchtey M. R. (2016, Circular Economy: Werte schöpfen, Kreisläufe schließen, McKinsey Centre for Business and Environment, presentation, Berlin, Germany, found on: https://www.mckinsey.de/files/20160125_circular_economy_germany.pdf, lastly checked on 17th November 2017. Tabone, M. D., Cregg, J. J., Beckman, E. J., & Landis, A. E. (2010), Sustainability metrics: life cycle assessment and green design in polymers. Environmental science & technology, 44(21), 8264-8269. Teunter R. H. van der Laan E. A. (2002), On the non-optimality of the average cost approach for inventory models with remanufacturing, International Journal of Production Economics, Nr. 79 (1), pp 67-73. Teuteberg F., Wittstruck D. (2010), A systematic review of sustainable supply chain management research: What is there and what is missing, in: MKWI Betriebliches Umwelt- und Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement, Schumann M. (Hrsg.), Kolbe L. M. (Hrsg.), Breitner M. H. (Hrsg.), Rerichs A. (Hrsg.), Universitätsverlag Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany, S. 1001-1015. TRACI (2018), databank, US EPA, found on: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/toolreduction-and-assessment-chemicals-and-other-environmental-impacts-traci, lastly checked on 13th February 2018. UNEP (2011), The Business Case for the Green Economy- Sustainable Return on Investment, found on http://staging.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/ger_final_dec_2011/Gre en%20EconomyReport_Final_Dec2011.pdf, lastly checked on 27th May 2017. UNEP (2011a), Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. UNEP (2017), Towards a Pollution Free Planet, Report of the Executive Director. Svanes, E., Vold, M., Møller, H., Pettersen, M. K., Larsen, H., & Hanssen, O. J. (2010), Sustainable packaging design: a holistic methodology for packaging design. Packaging Technology and Science, 23(3), 161-175. United Nations. (2015), World population prospects, the 2015 revision, found on: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/, lastly checked on 19.09.2017. Vercalsteren An, Dils Evelien, Boonen Katrien (2012), Life Cycle Assessment study of starch products for the European starch industry association (AAF): sector study, Boeretang, Belgium. Voevedina I., Krzan A. (2013), Bio-based plastics, Innovative value chain development for sustainable plastics in Central Europe. Verghese, K., & Lewis, H. (2007), Environmental innovation in industrial packaging: a supply chain approach. International Journal of Production Research, 45(18-19), 43814401. 127

Vermesan O., Friess P., Guillemin P., Serrano M., Bouraoui M., Freire L. P., Kallstenius T., Lam K., Eisenhauer M., Moessner K., Maurizio S., Tragos E. Z., Sundmaeker H., Malo P., van der Wees A. (2016), IoT Digital value chain connection research, innovation and deployment, in Digitising the Internet: Internet of Things Connecting the Physical, Digital and Virtual Worlds, pp 15-63, Vermesan O. (Ed.), Friess P. (Ed.), River Publishers Series in Communication, Volume 49, Delft. Westermann K. (1994), Verpackung aus nachwachsenden Rohstoffen, (1. Auflage), Würzburg, Germany. World Energy Council (2016), World Energy Resources: Waste to Energy. World Economic Forum. (2016), The new plastics economy—Rethinking the future of plastics (pp. 1–122) https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/the-new-plasticseconomy-rethinking-the-future-of-plastics Wallace T. (2017), Global plastic waste totals 4.9 billion tons, found on: https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/global-plastic-waste-totals-4-9-billion-tonnes, lastly checked on 17th December 2017. Worldometer (2017), found on: http://www.worldometers.info/de/, lastly checked on 20th September 2017 WPO 2008, Market Statistics and Future Trends in Global Packaging. Xiao, Y., Lu, L. Y. Y., Liu, J. S., & Zhou, Z. (2014), Knowledge diffusion path analysis of data quality literature: A main path analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 594–605. Xie X. (2006), Reverse Logistics im After Sales Service – insbesondere im Reparaturservice, Diplomarbeit, Grin Verlag, Druck und Bindung: Books on Demand GmbH, Norderstedt. Yam, K. L., Takhistov, P. T., & Miltz, J. (2005), Intelligent packaging: concepts and applications. Journal of food science, 70(1). Ziem, S., Chudziak, C., Taylor, R., Bauen, A., Murphy, R., Guo, M., Akhurst, M (2013), Environmental Assessment of Braskem’s Biobased PE Resin, Summary of the Life Cycle Assessment, Land-Use Change and Water Footprint Reports.

128

Unser gesamtes Verlagsprogramm finden Sie unter: www.diplomica-verlag.de