Download The Mandate Functional Unit and Trays Properties XPS* OPS PET

Cascades Canada ULC
Specialty Products Group
Consumer Products Packaging
455 Marie-Victorin Blvd, Kingsey Falls
Quebec, Canada, J0A 1A0
LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS FOOD TRAYS
The Mandate
1
Cascades mandated the CIRAIG to carry a comparative life cycle analysis (LCA) of various food packaging trays. These trays
are manufactured by Cascades in Quebec, Canada. The CIRAIG is an independent research center created in 2001 to meet the
demands of industry and governments to develop leading edge expertise in the field of life cycle analysis (LCA).
Functional Unit and Trays Properties
The functional unit was a 52 in³ tray to contain and permit the stacking and retailing of fruits or vegetables to consumers in
Quebec in 2010. The volume refers to a 8⅜ inches long, 5⅞ inches wide and 1 inch deep tray, better known in the industry as a
#3 tray. The seven different materials used by Cascades to make this type of tray can all be used to package other goods such
as meat, except for moulded pulp, which is uncoated and therefore only suitable for dry goods.
Table 1 – Trays characteristics
XPS*
OPS
PET
RPET
PLA
PP
MP
Expanded
Polystyrene
Oriented
Polystyrene
Polyethylene
Terephthalate
PET with 60%
recycled content
Polylactide
Polypropylene
Moulded Pulp
Weight
10,5g
20,9g
27,2g
27,2g
25,2g
19,2g
20,0g
Recycled content
0%
10%
10%
60%
0%
10%
100%
Extrusion
Quebec
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
USA
USA
-
Forming
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Recycling rate
0%
15%
38%
38%
0%
17%
41%
*The XPS tray considered in this study is processor grade. Grocery grade trays are approximately 30% lighter.
Modelling and Impact Assessment
The study includes all of the flows and processes involved in the production, distribution and end-of-life stages of the trays,
including the production and transport of the resources consumed and the management of the waste generated at each stage.
This study relied on available preliminary data whenever possible (i.e., data specific to the studied packaging options). These
preliminary data were annual averages collected from Cascades and its suppliers. Any missing, incomplete or inaccessible data
was then completed with assumptions and secondary data (i.e., generic or theoretical data available in the literature and life
cycle inventory (LCI) databases, and especially the European database, ecoinvent 2.0. For all of the activities that took place in
Quebec, Ontario and in the United States, the generic modules were adapted by replacing the European electricity grid mixes
with the appropriate grid mixes.
The data collected was modeled using SimaPro and assessed based on the IMPACT2002+ impact assessment method. The
values reported are the human health, ecosystem quality, climate change and resource depletion damage categories and the
aquatic acidification and eutrophication impact categories.
The study findings and methodology were validated by a peer-review committee, accordingly to ISO 14040 and 14044.
1
Interuniversity Research Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services, http://www.ciraig.org
Results Summary
Results are reported relatively to the material with the greatest impact in any given category (100%), with lower percentages
meaning lower environmental impacts. Detailed results for every impact category are displayed in page 3.
Table 2 – Trays relative environmental impact.
XPS
OPS
PET
RPET*
PLA
PP
MP
Expanded
Polystyrene
Oriented
Polystyrene
Polyethylene
Terephthalate
Recycled
PET
Polylactide
Polypropylene
Moulded Pulp
Human Health
13 %
32 %
85 %
48 %
100 %
62 %
7%
Ecosystems
5%
15 %
26 %
20 %
100 %
29 %
10 %
Climate Change
26 %
72 %
85 %
65 %
100 %
88 %
34 %
Resource Depletion
33 %
82 %
100 %
72 %
87 %
84 %
27 %
Acidification
19 %
44 %
52 %
39 %
100 %
90 %
10 %
Eutrophication
18 %
23 %
59 %
36 %
100 %
71 %
26 %
* In the CIRAIG study, RPET was 100% recycled. 60% recycled RPET impact values are weighted averages of virgin PET and
100% recycled RPET.
Key Findings
For Cascades’ tray offering and specific manufacturing processes, this study showed that:

Moulded Pulp (MP) and Expanded Polystyrene (XPS) are the choices with the least environmental impact.

Raw materials and manufacturing are the steps that contribute the most to the impacts.

Manufacturing location has a significant impact because of the difference in electric grid mix (hydroelectricity having
significantly less environmental impacts than electricity from coal or oil combustion).

End-of-life has very little impact overall.

In the context of this study, PLA is the worst environmental choice.
Future Works
Mathieu Roberge, M. Sc. Chemistry
Research & Development Manager
Cascades Specialty Products Group
Consumer Products Packaging
11-08-11 – Printed in Canada
Since the LCA report was issued by the CIRAIG, Cascades has integrated its RPET extrusion and thermoforming in its Quebec
facility. Cascades is also working on increasing its RPET recycled content. Preliminary results show these changes should lower
Cascades RPET impacts significantly, making it comparable to XPS and MP.
Figure 1 – Potential Human Health Damage.
Figure 4 – Potential Resource Depletion Damage.
Figure 2 – Potential Ecosystem Quality Damage.
Figure 5 – Potential Aquatic Acidification Impact.
Figure 3 – Potential Climate Change Damage.
Figure 6 – Potential Aquatic Eutrophication Impact.
11-08-11 – Printed in Canada
Detailed results