Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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