Assessing environmental trade-offs in packaging systems for infant formula delivery: A cradle-to-gate plus end-of-life life cycle assessment
Assessing environmental trade-offs in packaging systems for infant formula delivery: A cradle-to-gate plus end-of-life ... Michigan State University
sdgtalks
An LCA Study Comparing Packaging Systems for Infant Formula Delivery
A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study was conducted to compare three packaging systems used for delivering infant formula. The study focused on primary (plastic, composite, and steel containers), secondary (corrugated box), and tertiary (pallet) levels of packaging, all manufactured and distributed in North America. The main goal of the project was to quantify the environmental footprint (EF) of each packaging system, evaluate the impact of end-of-life (EoL) modeling on LCA results, and analyze the trade-offs among different environmental impact indicators.
Methodology
The functional unit chosen for the study was a packaging system that delivers 1000 g of infant formula from cradle-to-gate, including the end-of-life stage. The three packaging options, along with their respective end-of-life scenarios, were modeled using SimaPro 9.3.03 software. The primary impact assessment method used was TRACI 2.1 V1.06 Midpoint. The LCA study was conducted in accordance with ISO 14040/14044 standards. Three different EoL models were considered: the cut-off method, the 50/50 allocation, and the circular footprint formula (CFF). To evaluate the trade-offs among different environmental impact indicators, the stochastic multi-attribute analysis (SMAA) method was implemented.
Results
The primary packaging system had a significant contribution to the overall environmental footprint in all evaluated categories. Adjusting the end-of-life models had an impact on the overall results when comparing the environmental impacts of the different packaging systems. However, the changes in contributions for each category were minimal, with no significant shift from the packaging system with the highest or lowest footprints in the end-of-life models. The SMAA ranking preference for all end-of-life methods consistently indicated that the plastic container had the lowest environmental footprint with a probability of over 50%.
The environmental impacts of the packaging systems were subject to trade-off discussions. With the initial end-of-life methodology (cut-off method), Package 1 (plastic) showed the highest impact in four out of ten impact categories, Package 2 (composite) in two categories, and Package 3 (steel) in the remaining four categories. However, when using the 50/50 allocation and CFF end-of-life methodologies, different conclusions were reached regarding the impacts of each package. Nevertheless, the SMAA results consistently confirmed that the plastic package was preferred regardless of the end-of-life methodology used.
SDGs, Targets, and Indicators
1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?
- SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
- SDG 13: Climate Action
- SDG 14: Life Below Water (indirectly)
- SDG 15: Life on Land (indirectly)
2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?
- SDG 12.5: By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse.
- SDG 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising, and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning.
3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?
- Indicator for SDG 12.5: Waste generation (quantifying the environmental footprint of different packaging systems).
- Indicator for SDG 13.3: Environmental impact indicators (evaluating the effect of end-of-life modeling in LCA results).
Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators
| SDGs | Targets | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production | SDG 12.5: By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse. | Waste generation (quantifying the environmental footprint of different packaging systems). |
| SDG 13: Climate Action | SDG 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising, and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning. | Environmental impact indicators (evaluating the effect of end-of-life modeling in LCA results). |
Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.
Source: canr.msu.edu
Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.
