Life Cycle Assessment of Different Reuse Percentages For Glass Beer Bottles
Life Cycle Assessment of Different Reuse Percentages For Glass Beer Bottles
Life Cycle Assessment of Different Reuse Percentages For Glass Beer Bottles
Life Cycle Assessment of Different Reuse Percentages for Glass Beer Bottles
Teresa M. Mata and Carlos A. V. Costa
LEP Laboratory of Processes, Environment and Energy Engineering, Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal Corresponding author: Carlos A. V. Costa; e-mail: [email protected]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2001.06.056 Abstract. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is increasingly becoming an important tool for ecological evaluation of products or processes. In this study the environmental impacts associated with the returnable and the non-returnable glass beer bottles were assessed in order to compare different reuse percentages. The inventory analysis is performed with data obtained from two Portuguese companies (a glass bottles producer and a brewery) and completed with the BUWAL database. It includes all operations associated with the bottles' manufacture, the brewery and the wastewater treatment plant. The environmental impact assessment considers both the potential ecological and ecotoxicological effects of the emissions. The environmental impact categories included and discussed in this study are the contribution to ecological and human health, global warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication and photochemical ozone creation. The first category is divided into three subcategories that are human toxicity, critical air volume and critical water volume. This study was performed for several reuse percentages and returnable bottle cycles, and is comprised of a sensitivity analysis. The general output is that the relative importance of the impacts associated with the use of returnable and/or non-returnable bottles depends on the number of cycles performed by the returnable bottles. According to the impact index defined in this study, the most significant impacts are the eutrophication and the final solid wastes generated, and the least significant impact is the ozone depletion. Keywords: Environmental impacts; glass bottles; impact index;
Companies which implement eco-efficient practices will be able to respond more aggressively to competitive pressures, anticipate customer needs, protect the environment, and enhance their reputation and trust by demonstrating the careful and responsible actions of their business. LCA was firstly defined by the Society of Environmental Toxicological and Chemistry (Consoli et al. 1993) as a methodology to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with a product, a system or an activity. The process describes quantitatively or qualitatively the use of energy and materials and the wastes released, and assesses the environmental impacts of the product or activity, from raw material acquisition, manufacturing, distribution, use, reuse, maintenance, recycling, final disposal and all transportation involved. LCA addresses environmental impacts of the system under study in the areas of ecological systems, human health and resource depletion. The LCA methodology comprises four main stages: Goal definition and Scoping, Inventory Analysis, Impact Assessment and Interpretation. The methodological requirements for conducting these stages are provided in the International Standard ISO 14040 (1997) which describes the principles and framework, in the complimentary ISO 14041 (1998) that deals with the goal and scope definition and the inventory analysis. The last two stages of LCA methodology are described in the complimentary draft standards ISO 14042 (2000) and ISO 14043 (2000). Packaging has been the subject of intense public debate. A major environmental concern is the increasing amounts of solid waste, of which packaging constitutes a considerable share. In order to carry out the environmental assessment for packaging, the development and application of LCA has been essential. The European Commission has sought to define some of the key terms, which have traditionally confused sensible debate on recycling and reuse, including returnable, non-returnable, reusable, one-way and recoverable packaging. In fact, the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste indicates that: "reuse of packaging and recovery of packaging waste (and hence recycling) are both valid means for minimising its impact on the environment" (EC/ 62 Directive 1994). All the methods of waste minimisation: reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery have a role to play. There are many valuable applications of reuse, but under
Introduction
Life cycle assessment can provide opportunities for companies evaluating the environmental attributes of its products and services. It embraces cleaner production concepts such as the efficient use of raw materials, pollution prevention, source reduction, waste minimisation, internal recycling and reuse, and also features a life cycle perspective which follows products from the acquisition of raw materials to the final disposal stages. Performing an environmental assessment can not only identify and reduce environmental impacts and consequent liabilities, but may also save considerable time and money.
Int J LCA 6 (5) 307 319 (2001) ecomed publishers, D-86899 Landsberg, Germany and Ft. Worth/TX, USA Tokyo, Japan Mumbai, India Seoul, Korea
307
Production of returnable and nonreturnable glass beer bottles Furnace Blow moulding Heating tunnel Surface treatment Packaging Transport of amber cullet
Inputs
Transport of returnable beer bottles
Returnable bottles Bottles washing Crates washing Filling Crowning Pasteuriser Labelling Crates and Pallets
Non - returnable Bottles flushing Filling Crowning Pasteuriser Labelling Cardboard box Pallets
Outputs
Fig. 1: Boundary for life cycle assessment of the returnable and nonreturnable glass beer bottles system
The goal of this study is to assess the environmental impacts through the life cycle of returnable and non-returnable glass beer bottles comparing different reuse percentages. These bottles have 287g and 225g respectively and the same volume. The assessment includes the following life cycle stages: bottle manufacture, brewery and wastewater treatment plant operations and transportation.
1.2 Scope of the study
Function and functional unit. The function of this study is the distribution of beer in bottles of amber glass, 0.33 litres. The functional unit is 'the delivery of 330 litres of beer to the consumer' which corresponds to 1000 bottles (including returnable and non-returnable bottles). System boundary. Fig. 1 shows the system boundary limiting a flow diagram representing the different life cycle stages of the two bottle options by modules (e.g. production, filling, wastewater treatment, reuse, recycling, etc.). The inputs and outputs (materials or energy) were defined which enter and leave each module. The system boundary includes the raw material acquisition, glass bottle manufacture, cleaning, filling, closure, pasteurising, labelling, packaging, distribution, reuse, recycling, transportation of empty bottles from the bottle producer to the brewery, distribution of filled bottles to the consumer, return of bottles to refill and cullet to recycle. Geographical coverage. The study was restricted to the production and distribution of these bottles in the Metropolitan area of Porto, in the North of Portugal. The distance between the two companies, bottle producer and brewery, is 30 km and the average distance to the distribution of these
bottles in the Metropolitan area of Porto is 50 km. A truck is used to transport the bottles from the producer to the brewery, from the brewery to the consumer, to return bottles for refilling and cullet for recycling. Time-related coverage. The chosen time period is twelve months. Apart from being the period for which the industries maintain records, it also smoothes out any atypical behaviour, such as machine breakdowns, start-ups or seasonal differences, while being sufficiently short so that genuine improvements are not masked. Sources of the data, their representativeness. The data was collected from two Portuguese industries (one glass bottles producer and one brewery), from literature (BUWAL 1991, 1998) and engineering calculations conducted by the authors. To have an idea of the data quality, a data quality indicator (DQI) was defined. The DQI was developed in the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (BUWAL 1998) to be used in their standard questionnaire on manufacture. It provides information on data origin, category and type, relating data with a corresponding symbol. In this study, the following relationships were used: data origin: plant (P), literature (L) or other (X) data category: measured (I), calculated (II) or estimated (III) data type: single value (e), mean value of several single values (m) or other (x) Table 1 gives an overview of the data sources and their representativeness using the DQI. The majority of the inventory data have a good quality and representativeness because they are an average of several single values measured directly from the plant. The data covered by literature (BUWAL 1991, 1998) are the wastewater characterisation
308
Table 1: Overview of the DQI corresponding to the input and output values of the inventory
1.3
Inputs / Outputs Bottle manufacture: Material consumption Water consumption Energy consumption Wastewater Air emissions Solid waste Brewery: Material consumption Water consumption Energy consumption Wastewater Air emissions Solid waste Brewery wastewater treatment plant: Material consumption Water consumption Energy consumption Effluent Air emissions Solid waste
DQI PIm PIm PIm LIm PIm PIm PIm PIm PIm PIm LIIm PIm LIIe LIIe LIIe PIIe PIIe PIIe
from the bottle manufacture and the air emissions from the brewery. The data from the wastewater treatment plant are calculated from plant, literature and process design calculations (Metcalf and Eddy 1991, Eckenfelder 1989). In order to have an idea of the importance of error propagation in final results, we also include a sensitivity analysis. It consists of a quantitative data quality analysis, which considers a variation of 10% more and 10% less of the data concerning materials, water and energy consumption, emissions to air, water and soil. This sensitivity analysis was extended to the values of critical concentrations used in the study. Here, the variation was one order of magnitude.
air emissions batch silo raw-materials fuel oil burners
The relevant input and output values were calculated and totalled over the life cycle of the two types of glass bottles. The flow of material and energy in the study was followed from the acquisition of raw materials through processes, transportation, etc. to the disposal. Mata (1998) and Mata and Costa (1998, 1999a, 1999b) report the data identified and quantified in the inventory analysis. Calculation assumptions. Extraction and processing of natural resources, extraction and pre-treatment of water; electricity generation; what happens in landfills, and the consumer behaviour at home (refrigerating drinks, etc.), are assumed to be similar for both cases and were therefore excluded from the study. Transportation of raw materials, energy and wastes to landfills, infrastructures, capital goods (such as buildings, machines, roads, transport vehicles, transport equipment, etc.), auxiliary material chains (closures, labels, glues, printing inks, etc.) were also assumed to be similar. The recycling rate of glass bottles used in the calculations was 20%. The 80% not recycled, unless stated otherwise, were assumed to be stocked. The recycled material was assumed to be recycled in closed loop, here meaning that it could replace virgin material. About 18% of the raw materials in the bottle manufacture are lost as air emissions (Mata 1998, Mata and Costa 1998, 1999a, 1999b). The bottle manufacture process and its main inputs and outputs associated are presented in the Fig. 2. The Portuguese brewery has two different lines for the filling of returnable and non-returnable bottles that are represented by a flow sheet in Fig. 3 and 4. In the returnable bottle line there is a bottle washing machine and a crate washing ma-
gob
surface treatment
palletisation
quality control
shrink wrapping
Fig. 2: Manufacture of glass beer bottles and the main inputs and outputs associated
Set of bottles Pallets removal Crates removal Bottles wash Empty bottles inspector Filling Closure Final product Pasteurization Labelling Full bottles inspector Crates wash Stock of crates Crates machine Stock of pallets Pallets machine
Fig. 3: Schematic representation of the industrial line to fill returnable beer bottles
309
Set of bottles Pallets removal Bottles flush Empty bottles Inspector Filling Closure Pasteurization Labelling Full bottles Inspector Retraction tunnel Cardboard box Six Pack Final product Stock of pallets Pallets machine Top film machine Wrapper
Fig. 4: Schematic representation of the industrial line to fill non-returnable beer bottles
chine, which don't exist in the non-returnable bottle line because they are only flushed with water. The resources used and the emissions generated by a brewery, during the processes of cleaning (washing machine or simply flushing), filling, closure (crowning), pasteurising, labelling and packaging of beer bottles are well known per bottle unit. Brewery wastewater is generally high in organic material. Wastewater is treated biologically using both anaerobic and aerobic processes. The treatment in anaerobic reactor converts organic material to CH4 and CO2. In the aerobic treatment, organic material is also converted to CO2 and sludge (biomass). The conversion is done with O2 mechanically supplied to the reactor tank by air diffusion. The sludge generated in the wastewater treatment plant is dewatered in a belt filter press after being stabilised with lime and flocculated with polymer. The dewatered sludge has good characteristics for agricultural use. Fig. 5 shows the wastewater treatment plant from the brewery. According to statistical data from the brewery, oin average, a returnable bottle performs 6 to 7 cycles per year and the percentage of returnable bottle breakage in each cycle is 15%. This means that 15% of the returnable bottles need to be substituted for new ones, in order to always deliver the same volume of beer per cycle.
influent boiler
These assumptions allowed a comparison between the returnable and the non-returnable bottles, calculating each impact as a function of the number of reuses or cycles performed by the returnable bottle. In this comparison, all the reuse percentages were analysed (20 to 85%). The environmental impacts analysed in this comparison were: critical air and water volumes, human toxicity, global warming, ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical ozone creation, solid wastes, water consumption, energy consumption, rawmaterial consumption and auxiliary material consumption. The category of raw-material includes the yellow sand, sodium carbonate, dolomite, lime stone, sodium sulphate, coal, iron oxide, amber cullet used in the glass bottle production. The category of auxiliary material includes the packaging auxiliary materials (glue, labels, crown corks, cardboard, carton, crates, pallets, and plastic stretch and shrink-wraps), oils for equipment lubrication in bottle manufacture (e.g. lubrication of glass drop scissors and conveyors), tin oxide for the hot treatment and soluble polyethylene or oleic acid for the cold treatment in the bottles manufacture, chemicals for clean, in place brewery equipment and floor cleaning agents, soap for conveyor lubrication, oils for trucks and forklifts, chemicals used for the neutralisation in the brewery's wastewater treatment plant.
anaerobic treatement
HCl
NaOH
lime polymer
stabilization filtrate
belt filter
solids
Fig. 5: Brewery wastewater treatment plant
310
Table 2: Air emissions from the bottle manufacture, brewery and wastewater treatment, corresponding to 50% of reuse
Bottle manufacture Emissions 1 Cycle CO2 Dust CO SO2 NOx NO2 N2O HCl HF Pb Cd Zn VOC Hydrocarbons CFC CH4 Cycle n CO2 Dust CO SO2 NOx NO2 N2O HCl HF Pb Cd Zn VOC Hydrocarbons CFC CH4 3.9542 0.0766 0.0022 0.1170 0.0537 0.0020 0.0016 0.0001 0.0007 0.00002 0.00012 0.00072 20.6663 0.4005 0.0112 0.6112 0.2808 0.0102 0.0084 0.0007 0.0037 0.0001 0.0007 0.0038 0.0006 0.0001 6.5960 0.0017 0.0005 0.0506 0.0134 0.0012 26.3610 0.5109 0.0143 0.7797 0.3582 0.0131 0.0107 0.0009 0.0047 0.0001 0.0008 0.0048 20.6663 0.4005 0.0112 0.6112 0.2808 0.0102 0.0084 0.0007 0.0037 0.0001 0.0007 0.0038 0.0007 0.0001 6.5960 0.0017 0.0005 0.0506 0.0134 0.0012
st
Brewery Returnable (kg/330 litres) Non-returnable (kg/330 litres) 5.9164 0.0015 0.0004 0.0454 0.0120 0.0010
Wastewater treatment Returnable (kg/330 litres) 1.9619 Non-returnable (kg/330 litres) 1.3080
0.0221
0.0147
0.0006 0.0001 0.0052 5.9164 0.0015 0.0004 0.0454 0.0120 0.0010 0.0221 0.0147 1.9619 0.0035 1.3080
311
Table 3: Wastewater characterisation from the bottle manufacture and brewery, corresponding to 50% of reuse Bottle manufacture
Brewery Non-returnable (kg/330 litres) 0.07 3.57 7.51 0.65 0.32 4.83 0.07 3.57 7.51 0.65 0.32 4.83
Emissions 1 Cycle TSS BOD COD Fats N P Volatile Fatty Acids Cycle n TSS BOD COD Fats N P Volatile Fatty Acids
st
Returnable (kg/330 litres) 283.51 0.14 1.06 5.25 0.0131 0.0107 42.53 0.02 0.16 0.79 0.0020 0.0016
Non-returnable (kg/330 litres) 222.26 0.11 0.83 4.11 0.0102 0.0084 222.26 0.11 0.83 4.11 0.0102 0.0084
Returnable (kg/330 litres) 0.11 5.36 11.27 0.97 0.49 7.25 0.11 5.36 11.27 0.97 0.49 7.25
1.4
The selection of impact categories, indicators and models was based on guidance and requirements provided by ISO 14042 (2000). It refers to the selection of impact categories, while indicators and models shall reflect a comprehensive set of environmental issues related to the product system being studied, taking the goal and scope into consideration. Several existing impact categories could be selected (Hunt et al. 1974, EMPA/BUS 1984, Habersatter 1991, Mekel et al. 1990, Guine et al. 1991a, 1991b, 1991c, Christiansen 1991, Baumann et al. 1991, Finnveden 1992). For example, in the SETAC-Europe workshop (1992), the working group on classification succeeded in drafting a list of effects to be considered. It is divided into input and output-related effects. The first includes scarcely renewable and non-renewable resources (raw materials). The second includes: global warming, ozone depletion, human toxicity, environmental toxicity, acidification, eutrophication, COD discharge, photo-oxidant formation, space requirements, nuisance (smell and noise), occupational safety, final solid waste (hazardous and non-hazardous) and effects of waste heat on water. The scope of this work is limited to ecological and ecotoxicological effects of emissions. This means that categories such as consumption of natural resources, effects of land use and nuisance were not considered. The categories that were selected for this work are focused on global and regional effects. They are the following: Ecological and human health: Critical water and air volumes Human toxicity Global warming Ozone Depletion Acidification Eutrophication Photochemical Ozone Creation Final Solid Waste
Ecological and Human Health: Critical Air and Water Volumes (Va, Vw). Habersatter (1991) suggested the critical volume approach. In this method, the values of water and air emissions are divided by their critical concentrations in the air and in the water. For air emission, Habersatter usesvalues of 'Maximale Immissionskonzentration' (MIK) as critical concentrations, i.e. maximum emission concentration, if such are available. Otherwise, values are approximated from 'Maximale Arbeitzplatzkonzentration' (MAK), i.e occupational exposure limits. For water emissions, Habersatter uses the quality standard values from Swiss directives for emissions into surface water. It is important to note that quality standards for human health have only a limited relevance for ecological and ecotoxicological effects. The critical air volume, Va,i (m3/330 litres of beer), is the volume of air required to dilute the emission of substance i to the limit set. It is calculated by dividing the value of the emission of substance i to the air, ea,i (kg/330litres of beer), by the critical concentration of this substance in the air, ca,i (mg/m3) as follows:
Va , i = 10 6
e a,i c a,i
(1)
The total critical air volume, Va [m3/330 litres of beer], is obtained by adding the critical volumes of all the pollutants emitted by a system:
e a,i Va = Va , i = 10 6 c a,i i i
(2)
The same procedure can be used to calculate the total critical water volume Vw [dm3/330 litres of beer].
e w ,i Vw = Vw , i = 10 6 c w ,i i i
(3)
312
(6) where ODPi is the Ozone Depletion Potential of the substance i emitted to the air. Acidification (Ac). Acidification is a measure of the phenomenon known as acid rain, which is caused by gaseous pollutants. It is calculated on the basis of hydrogen ions that can be produced per mole of sulphur dioxide (SO2). The contribution to acidification of different airborne emissions can be determined by weighting them with their Acidification Potentials (AP), which reflect the ability to release protons compared with sulphur dioxide (SO2). The Acidification Potentials can therefore be presented as SO2 equivalents (CML 1992). These values can be used to convert the airborne emissions (in kg) to an equivalent emission of SO2, which has the same effect with regard to acidification.
(4)
where E is the emission [kg] and HCA [kg of body weight/kg substance], HCW [kg of body weight/kg substance] and HCS [kg of body weight/kg substance] are the weighting factors of this emission to the air, water and soil, respectively The unit of the contribution to human toxicity from chemical j is the [kg], which can be interpreted as [kg of body weight] that has been contaminated to the toxicity level. In this study, the weighting factors from the "CML provisional method for human toxicity" (Heijungs et al. 1992) are adopted. Global Warming (GW). Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a measure of the potential contribution of different gases to the greenhouse effect. It reflects the potential to absorb infrared radiation of one mass unit of pollutant compared with one mass unit of carbon dioxide (CO2) which is used as a reference gas. The absorption properties of greenhouse gases are therefore expressed in terms of relative CO2. The Global Warming Potentials that have been presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1992 are used as weighting factors. The GWP will have different values depending on over which time span the integration is done. It is suggested to use the most recent IPCC values for a time period of 100 years as a reference. These values can be used to convert the airborne emissions (in kg) to an equivalent emission of CO2, which has the same effect with regard to global warming (Houghton et al. 1992).
(7)
where APi is the Acidification Potential of the substance i emitted to the air. Eutrophication (Eu). Eutrophication is a measure of the increase in biomass due to the addition of nutrients to water or soil. It is calculated with reference to the capacity of phosphate formation, i.e. as PO43- equivalents. A separation is made between terrestrial and aquatic systems and both systems are reflected in different levels of aggregation. When PO43- is used as a reference substance, an Eutrophication Potential (EP) can be derived for all the substances that contribute to eutrophication. The EP is used to aggregate emissions of substances that contribute potentially to eutrophication.
(5) where Ei is the mass of substance i emitted to the air and GWPi is the Global Warming Potential of the substance i. Ozone Depletion (OD). For airborne emissions which contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer, the concept of Ozone Depletion Potentials (ODP) has been developed (UNEP 1992). It reflects the potentials to deplete the ozone
(8)
where EPi is the Eutrophication Potential of the substance i emitted to the water.
313
Impact category
Fig. 6: Impact index for several impact categories
(9) where POCPi is the Ozone Creation Potential of the substance i emitted to the air. The POCP depend upon local conditions like existing background levels of VOC and NOx and different meteorological conditions. The POCP values, which have been published by Derwent and Jenkins (1990) for the UK, are used in this study. Final Solid Waste (FSW). The final solid waste, Mswi, is the sum of all the solid wastes generated by the system and is stated as a mass per functional unit [kg/functional unit].
Fig. 7 shows the critical air and water volumes calculated for several reuse percentages. The impact indexes for critical air and water volumes are respectively 1.16 and 1.17. These results suggest that the critical water and air volumes associated with the distribution of 330 litres of beer increase with the reuse percentage and are thus higher for returnable bottles. Human Toxicity. The most important contribution comes from air emissions. In this case study, water and soil emissions do not contain components that contribute to human toxicity (Heijungs et al. 1992). In air emissions, the CO, SO2, NOx, HF, Pb, Cd and Zn were considered to calculate the contribution to human toxicity of the delivery of 330 litres of beer. Fig. 7 shows the contribution to human toxicity due to air emissions. The impact index here is 1.17 and the trend is the same as observed for the previous case. Global Warming. The CO2 is the component of air emissions that contributes more to global warming. It is generated during fermentation and used in carbonating the beer, and to flush bottles, cans and kegs before filling. In this case study, N2O, hydrocarbons and specially CH4 also contribute to this environmental effect. Fig. 7 shows the contribution to the global warming of the delivery of 330 litres of beer, comparing several reuse percentages. The impact index is 1.15, again indicating the same trend, i.e. returnable bottles have higher impacts than nonreturnable ones. Ozone Depletion. The components that contribute to the ozone depletion in this study are some CFC, since they are used in cooling systems in a brewery. Fig. 7 shows the contribution to the ozone depletion of the delivery of 330 litres of beer, comparing several reuse percentages. The impact index is 1.07, indicating the same trend. Acidification. Several components of air emissions were considered to calculate the acidification. The most important is the SO2. The others are HCl, HF and NOx. Fig. 7 shows the contribution to the acidification of the delivery of 330 litres of beer. The impact index for acidification is 1.17, suggesting that the contribution to acidification also increases with the reuse percentage.
M sw = M sw , i i
2 Results and Discussion
(10)
In the following, we present and discuss the results of this study for each impact category and considering several reuse percentages between 20 and X%. In order to get a better feeling of the influence of the reuse rate on impacts, we will use an impact index, In, defined as
In =
(11)
In Fig. 6 the impact indexes of the several impact categories are presented. Ecological and Human Health: Critical Water and Air Volumes. Critical air volume was calculated considering the contribution of dust, CO, SO2, NOx, HCl, HF, Pb, Cd and hydrocarbons in air emissions. Critical water volume was calculated considering the contribution of undissolved material, BOD, COD and fats in water emissions.
314
Critical Air Volume (m3 air / 330 litres) Returnable 120000000 100000000 80000000 60000000 40000000 20000000 0 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 85% Non-returnable
Returnable 30000000 25000000 20000000 15000000 10000000 5000000 0 20% 30% 40% 50%
Non-returnable
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5
Returnable
Non-returnable
60%
70%
85%
(% of reuse)
(% of reuse)
Global Warming (kg CO2 equivalents / 330 litres) Returnable 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 85% Non-returnable
Ozone Depletion (kg CFC-11 equivalents / 330 litres) Returnable 0.00014 0.00012 0.00010 0.00008 0.00006 0.00004 0.00002 0.00000 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 85% Non-returnable
Acidification (kg SO2 equivalents / 330 litres) Returnable 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 85% (% of reuse)
Final Solid Waste (kg solids / 330 litres) Returnable 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Non-returnable
Non-returnable
(% of reuse)
(% of reuse)
Eutrophication (kg PO43- equivalents / 330 litres) Returnable 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 85% (% of reuse) Non-returnable
Photochemical Ozone creation (kg ethene equivalents / 330 litres) Returnable 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 85% Non-returnable
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
85%
(% of reuse)
(% of reuse)
Fig. 7: Environmental impacts for the delivery of 330 litres of beer, as a function of reuse percentage
Eutrophication. In addition to the eutrophicaton effect we considered the contribution of COD, N and P from water emissions and NOx and N2O from air emissions. Fig. 7 compares this contribution for several reuse percentages. The impact index for eutrophication is 1.29, suggesting that the contribution to eutrophication also increases with the reuse percentage. Photochemical Ozone Creation. In addition to the photochemical ozone creation we considered the contribution of VOC, hydrocarbons and CH4. Fig. 7 shows how this contribution evolves as a function of the reuse percentages. The impact index here is 1.16, indicating the same trend as previously observed. Final Solid Waste. The solid waste from the bottle manufacture consists of scrap, oils and waste from cullet treatment plant (metals, mirror glass, paper, plastics, ceramic materials, stones, sand, textiles, etc.), used oils, oil cans, petrol cans, spray cans, scrap, wasted raw-materials, pine wood, cardboard, plastics and scrap. The solid waste from the brewery consists of broken glass bottles, cardboard, carton, paper, plastic, metals and pine wood from auxiliary packaging materials, surplus yeast, spent kieselguhr and grains from beer production, used oils cans,
petrol cans, spray cans, scrap, grit, paper pulp and glue from the bottle-washing machine, waste oil and grease, waste paints and thinners, sludge from wastewater treatment. Before being filled, the non-returnable bottle is simply flushed with fresh water, but the returnable bottle is sent to a bottle washer that removes all impurities inside and outside. Inside the bottles, impurities include residual beer mould, cigarette butts and other things. Externally, impurities may include labels, tin foil and dust particles. Bottle washing is likely to consist of soaking, rinsing, sterilisation and re-rinsing. Fig. 7 shows how the impact from solid wastes varies with the reuse percentage. The impact index is 1.51, suggesting that the amount of final solid wastes associated with the distribution of 330 litres of beer in glass bottles increases with the reuse percentage and is thus higher for returnable bottles.
2.2 Comparison between returnable and non-returnable bottles
In order to compare the returnable with the non-returnable bottle, each impact was calculated as a function of the number of reuses or cycles performed by the returnable bottle. Per cycle, 15% of returnable bottles break. This means that 15% of these bottles need to be substituted for new
315
Table 4: Contribution of the returnable bottles for the environmental impacts compared with the non-returnable bottles Impact Category Critical air and water volume Water consumption Auxiliary Materials consumption Smaller Smaller Smaller Larger Larger Larger Larger
Ozone Depletion
Global warming
Human toxicity
Eutrophication
70%
85%
Smaller Smaller Smaller Smaller Smaller after the rd 3 cycle Smaller after the th 5 cycle Larger
Smaller Smaller Smaller Smaller Smaller after the rd 3 cycle Smaller after the th 5 cycle Larger
Larger
Larger
Larger
Smaller Smaller Smaller Smaller Smaller after the rd 3 cycle Smaller after the th 5 cycle Larger
Larger
Larger
Smaller Smaller Smaller Smaller Smaller after the rd 3 cycle Smaller after the th 6 cycle Larger
Larger
Larger
Energy consumption
Solid Wastes
Acidification
% Reuse
Larger
Larger
Larger
Smaller Smaller Smaller Smaller Smaller after the th 3 cycle Smaller after the th 4 cycle Larger
ones, in order to deliver the same volume of beer per cycle. All the reuse percentages (20 to 85%) were analysed. In this comparison, the environmental impacts analysed are: critical air and water volumes, human toxicity, global warming, ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical ozone creation, solid wastes, water consumption, energy consumption, raw-materials consumption and auxiliary material consumption. Table 4 resumes the contribution of the returnable bottles for the environmental impacts comparing with the non-returnable bottles. In the case of 20% and 30% reuse, the contribution of the returnable bottles for all the environmental impacts is smaller than that of the returnable bottles. Reusing 40%, the returnable bottles contribute less for the environmental impacts, except for solid wastes. For 50% reuse, the contribution of returnable bottles to global warming, acidification, photochemical ozone creation, critical air and water volume, human toxicity, energy and raw-material consumption is smaller than that of the nonreturnable bottles after the second reuse. The contribution of returnable bottles to eutrophication, ozone depletion, solid waste, water and auxiliary material consumption is larger even after several reuses. Reusing 60%, the contribution of returnable bottles to global warming and energy consumption is smaller than that of the non-returnable bottles after the fourth reuse and the contribution of returnable bottles to acidification, photochemical ozone creation, human toxicity, and critical air and water volume is smaller than that of the non-returnable bottles after the third reuse. The other impacts are larger for the returnable bottles, even after several reuses. For 70% reuse, the contribution of returnable bottles to photochemical ozone creation is smaller than that of the non-returnable bottles after the sixth reuse and the contribution to acidification, human toxicity and critical air and water volume is smaller than that of the non-returnable bot-
tles after the fifth reuse. The other impacts are larger for the returnable bottles even after several reuses. With 85% reuse, the contribution of the returnable bottles for all the environmental impacts is larger than that of the non-returnable bottles.
2.3
Sensitivity analysis
Fig. 8 shows the evolution of the impacts for the returnable and the non-returnable bottles, considering 50% reuse as a function of the number of cycles. In the same figure, the error band for the impacts generated is presented assuming more or less 10% on all the base data, e.g. materials, energy and water consumption and emissions. This variation of 10% originates an error of about 0.1 on the environmental impacts. However, the relative position of the curves for both bottles is not affected for all the impact categories. Fig. 9 shows the evolution of critical air and water volumes for the returnable and the non-returnable bottles, considering 50% reuse as a function of number of cycles and the error band assuming more or less one order of magnitude on the critical concentrations. Although this variation originates with an error of 9 and 0.9 for the variation of more and less one order magnitude, respectively on the critical concentrations, it doesnt affect the superiority or inferiority of one bottle versus the other, i.e. the relative position of the critical volume curves for both bottles.
3 Conclusions and Recommendations
The findings of this study may take the form of conclusions and recommendations to decision-makers, consistent with the goal and scope of the study. This LCA study allowed the following conclusions: In the packaging areas of breweries, the processes of bottle and crate washing, pasteurisation, rinsing and cleaning of equipment, cleaning of floors, soap lubrication of bot-
316
Raw-materials consumption
Global Warming (kg CO2 equivalents/330 litres) 250 Returnable 200 150 100 50 0 Cycle1 Cycle2 Cycle3
3-
Non Returnable
Eutrophication (kg PO4 equivalents/330 litres) 15 Returnable 12 9 6 3 0 Cycle1 Cycle2 Cycle3 Cycle4 Cycle5 Cycle6 Non Returnable 0.014 0.012 0.010 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.000
Photochemical Ozone Creation (kg ethene equivalents/330 litres) Returnable Non Returnable
Cycle1
Cycle2
Cycle3
Cycle4
Cycle5
Cycle6
Ozone Deplection (kg CFC-11 equivalents/330 litres) 0.0005 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 Cycle1
Returnable
Non Returnable
Cycle2
Cycle3
Cycle4
Cycle5
Cycle6
0.E+00 Cycle1 Cycle2 Cycle3 Cycle4 Cycle5 Cycle6 Human Toxicity (kg body weight/330 litres) 12 Returnable Non Returnable
Critical Water Volume (dm3/330 litres) 9.0E+07 7.5E+07 6.0E+07 4.5E+07 3.0E+07 1.5E+07 0.0E+00 Cycle1 Cycle2 Cycle3 Cycle4 Cycle5 Cycle6 Returnable Non Returnable 10 8 6 4 2 0
Cycle1
Cycle2
Cycle3
Cycle4
Cycle5
Cycle6
Fig. 8: Environmental impacts for returnable and non-returnable bottles considering 50% reuse, as a function of number of cycles and error band assuming more or less 10% on all the base data
317
Critical Air Volume (m /330 litres) 4.E+09 3.E+09 3.E+09 2.E+09 2.E+09 1.E+09 5.E+08 0.E+00 Cycle1 Cycle2 Cycle3 Cycle4 Cycle5 Cycle6 Returnable Non Returnable
Returnable
Non Returnable
Cycle1
Cycle2
Cycle3
Cycle4
Cycle5
Cycle6
Fig. 9: Critical volumes for returnable and non-returnable bottles considering 50% reuse, as a function of number of cycles and error band assuming more or less one order of magnitude on the critical concentrations
tle conveyors, vacuum pumps for filling and flushing of fillers, consumption of large amounts of water and energy. Wastewater from the brewery is treated biologically using both anaerobic and aerobic processes. The anaerobic process generates large amounts of sludge that need to be dewatered. That sludge can be used in agriculture, depending on some factors, such as the soil characteristics. Large quantities of solid waste are generated in the packaging operations of a brewery which consists of paper, plastics and metals from packaging materials, surplus yeast, spent kieselguhr and grains from beer production, grit, small pieces of broken glass, paper pulp and glue from the bottle washing machine. The returnable bottles can perform an average of 6 cycles per year before being recycled. For this reason, the environmental impacts related to the bottle manufacture are smaller for the returnable bottles after the second reuse, since only 15% of returnable bottles need to be produced to deliver 330 litres of beer. Considering 50% reuse, i.e. the same number of returnable and non-returnable bottles, the contribution of returnable bottles to global warming, acidification, photochemical ozone creation, critical air and water volume, human toxicity, energy and raw-material consumption is smaller than that of the non-returnable bottles after the second reuse. The contribution of returnable bottles to eutrophication, ozone depletion, solid waste, water and auxiliary material consumption is larger even after several reuses. From the sensitivity analysis conducted, it was concluded that possible errors in the input and output data dont affect the superiority or inferiority of one bottle versus the other much. Since the inventory data demonstrate a good representativeness according to the data quality indicator, we can conclude that the results of this study have a good reliability. The impact index shows that eutrophication and final solid wastes generated are the most significant impacts of this case study. The critical air and water volume, human toxicity, global warming, acidification and photochemical ozone creation are not so significant and the least significant is the ozone depletion.
In a decision making process, and specially regarding the distribution of beer in returnable or non-returnable bottles, it is necessary to analyse not only the environmental, but also the economic, technological and social implications of the proposed options in order to choose the better reuse percentage and to have a more sustainable glass beer bottle system.
Nomenclature Ac AP ca Cj cw E Eu EP ea ew FSW GW GWP HCA HCW HCS HT In Msw OD ODP POC POCP Va Vw acidification acidification potential critical concentration in the air combined contribution to human toxicity critical concentration in the water mass of the emission eutrophication eutrophication potential emission to air emission to water final solid waste global warming global warming potential weighting factor for air emissions weighting factor for water emissions weighting factor for soil emissions human toxicity impact index mass of solid wastes ozone depletion ozone depletion potential photochemical ozone creation photochemical ozone creation potential critical air volume critical water volume
Acknowledgements. Teresa Mata would like to thank Fundao para a Cincia e Tecnologia (PRAXIS XXI) for their support through provision of a postgraduate scholarship. The authors thank those companies and individuals that have assisted with data and information.
References Baumann H, Ekvall T, Ryderberg T, Svensson G, Tillman AM (1991): Operationalization of the Classification. Paper presented at SETAC-Europe Workshop on Environmental Life Cycle Analysis of Products, SETAC-Europe, Leiden, The Netherlands
318
BUWAL (1991): Life Cycle Inventories for Packagings. No 123. Swiss Federal Office of Environment, Forests and Landscape, Zurich, Switzerland BUWAL (1998): Life Cycle Inventories for Packagings. Vol 1 & 2. No 250. Swiss Federal Office of Environment, Forests and Landscape, Zurich, Switzerland Christiansen K. (1991): Possibilities and Limitations to Life Cycle Analysis. In: Packaging and the Environment Policies, Strategies and Instruments. International Expert Seminar, Trolleholm Castle, Sweden, Dept. of Industrial Environmental Economics, Lunds University, Lund, Sweden CML (1992): Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products - Guide and Backgrounds. Centrum voor Milieukunde, Leiden, The Netherlands Consoli F, Allen D, Bousted I, Fava J, Franklin W. et al. (1993): Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: A Code of Practice. SETAC, Brussels, Belgium Derwent RG, Jenkin ME (1990): Hydrocarbon Involvement in Photochemical Ozone Formation in Europe. AERE R 13736, Harwell Laboratory, Oxfordshire Eckenfelder WW Jr (1989): Industrial Water Pollution Control. McGraw-Hill International Editions, Civil Engineering Series EC/62/1994: Council Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste EMPA (1984): kobilanzen von Packstoffen. Schriftenreihe Umweltschutz 24, Herausgegeben vom Bundesamt fr Umweltshutz (BUS), Bern Finnveden G (1992): Landfilling A forgotten Part of the Life Cycle Assessment. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Gothenburg, Sweden Franklin WE et al. (1990): Comparative Energy and Environmental Analysis of Three Interior Packaging Materials. Franklin Associates, Ltd, Kansas, 58 Franklin Associates Inc (1978): FamilySize Soft Drink Container A comparative Energy and Environmental Impact Analysis. Prepared for Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Akron, OH Franklin Associates Inc (1989): Comparative Energy and Environmental Impacts for the Delivery of Soft Drinks in Nine Containers. Prepared for National Association for Plastic Container Recovery (Charlotte, NC), Prairie Village, KS Guine JB (1991a): Headings for Classification. Paper presented at SETAC-Europe Workshop on Environmental Life Cycle Analysis of Products. SETAC-Europe, Leiden, The Netherlands Guine JB, Heijjungs R, Huppes G, Assies JA, Huele R, van Oers L (1991b): Manual for the environmental Life Cycle Analysis of Products. Outline, CES, Leiden University, The Netherlands. Also part of the presentation by G. Huppes at Life Cycle Analysis LCA, International Symposium at the Danish Technological Institute, Taastrup, Denmark Guine JB, Huppes G, Huele R, Mulder P, van Oers L, Goedkopp MJ, Jansen A (1991c): SimaPro System for the Integral Environmental Analysis of Products (manual and diskettes). Center for Environmental Studies, Leiden University, Leiden and Pr Consultants Habersatter K (1991): Ecobalance of Packaging Materials State of 1990. Swiss Federal Office of Environment, Forests and Landscape, Zurich, Switzerland Heijungs R, Guine JB, Huppes G, Landkreije, RM, Udo de Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, de Goede HP (1992): Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products Guide and Backgrounds. CML, Leiden University, The Netherlands Houghton JT, Callandar BA, Varney SK (1992): Climate Change 1992. The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment, University Press, Cambridge Hun, RG, Franklin WE, Welch RO, Cross JA, Woodal, AE (1974): Resources and Environmental Profile Analysis of Nine Beverage Container Alternatives. EPA/530/SW-91-C
319