ABSTRACT: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is one of the primary methods of assessing sustainability of products, services, processes, building and even whole industries and economies. The aim of the study is to conduct methodological research scenarios of the Life Cycle Assessment for selected packaging applications. Three packaging types – jars for cosmetics – were chosen for this study. They share the same function, and have identical product capacities, but are manufactured from different components and with the use of different packaging materials, which makes them ideal as LCA results examples. This selection will allow the study to focus specifically a factor that is very often quoted as the main disadvantage of LCA – imperfect impact assessment methodology. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to show and discuss approaches available to limit this disadvantage. Risk of choosing inadequate impact assessment methodology can be limited by performing the study with more than one method. Of the three methods chosen for comparison, ReCiPe and Impact 2002+ confirmed results, while ILCD method presented a wholly different outcome – due to the methods lack of inclusion of viable non-renewable resources utilisation impact assessment categories.
STRESZCZENIE: Celem zadania badawczego jest przeprowadzenie metodologicznych scenariuszy badawczych Oceny Cyklu Życia dla wytypowanych opakowań. Do badania wytypowano trzy opakowania – słoiki przeznaczone do produktów kosmetycznych. Wszystkie opakowania cechują się tą samą funkcją i mają identyczną pojemność, ale wyprodukowane są z innych materiałów opakowaniowych i składają się z różnych komponentów. Taki wybór opakowań pozwoli dokonać interesującej analizy porównawczej, skupiającej się na aspekcie uznawanym w literaturze za największą wadę metodologii oceny cyklu życia – brak obiektywnej metody badawczej. Ryzyko wyboru nieadekwatnej metody oceny wpływu środowiskowego można ograniczyć poprzez przygotowanie kilku scenariuszy zawierających alternatywne metody. Z trzech wybranych metod, metoda ReCiPe oraz Impact 2002+ potwierdziły konkluzje ogólnych badań, podczas kiedy wyniki badania metodą ILCD okazały się sprzeczne. Spowodowane jest to brakiem kategorii wpływu środowiskowego dotyczącego zużycia paliw kopalnych w metodzie ILCD.
1. Introduction
1.1 Packaging, environment and sustainability assessment
Widespread use of packaging, mostly produced from non-renewable resources, causes a noticeable increase in environmental burdens – the consumption of natural resources, emissions during production, as well as the need for management of increased waste. Increasing public awareness, more stringent legal regulations and the development of knowledge about the environmental impact of products, makes the protection of the natural environment and sustainable development more and more important. More attention is paid to the type of raw materials and their impact on the environment, energy consumption, mode of transport, storage and disposal of post-consumer waste.
The activities of environmental organizations, increased awareness of residents, increasing legal requirements, and above all, the development of knowledge about the impact of many products on the state of the environment led to the development of various methods to assess this impact in the context of environmental threats. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an example of a method effectively implemented in industrial practice, aimed at limiting the negative impact on the environment. It complies with the international standard ISO 14040 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and structure.
The LCA method seems to be a natural development of both the environmental management system and the waste management strategy. The life cycle assessment analyses the environmental hazards associated with the product throughout its life, including: extraction and processing of raw materials, production (production process), distribution, transport, use, and waste management [1].
The life cycle is defined as subsequent, interrelated processes – from the collection of raw materials to the production of materials, through the production and distribution phase, up to the stage of waste generation and the processes of their recovery and / or disposal [2].
In the case of packaging, the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) enables assessment of environmental impacts resulting from all stages of packaging life, including:
– extraction and processing of raw materials,
– production (production process),
– distribution,
– transport,
– usage
– re-use,
– recycling or other methods of waste recovery,
– final disposal of waste.
The LCA method should form part of the concept of extended producer responsibility for the product and be used by industry as a basic factor supporting the decision-making process related to the selection of packaging for specific product groups.
Packaging tests incorporating the LCA method rely on the recording of environmental burdens in the particular stages of their life cycle (system boundaries). According to this, it is possible to depict the impact of the assessed packaging on individual categories of environmental mechanisms based on life science (like for example quality of soil, use of minerals, water, air, animals and plants, landscape and climate). Knowledge on this subject allows making choices more beneficial for the environment, and thus enables rational management of resources in accordance with the principle of the sustainable development [3]. If the environmental impacts of specific packaging are known, strategies can be defined to reduce them, for example through material changes, technological development, better process management, etc. [4]. An extremely important stage in the Life Cycle Assessment is the selection of the Environmental Impact Assessment Method (LCIA). The chosen method determines which substances used and emitted during the entire life cycle of the packaging are included in the final result and to what extent the selected substances are responsible for individual environmental mechanisms, translated into environmental impacts and damages. The choice of method can significantly affect the final result and the interpretation of the results, which is why it is crucial that the method correctly reflects the environmental mechanisms relevant to the packaging. The quality of input data is another critical element of the objective life cycle assessment. This parameter can also be assessed using an uncertainty analysis based on the Monte Carlo statistical methodology. This method is used to mathematically model processes that are too complex to predict using a singular analytical approach. Results of Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis will be presented in consequent paper.
1.2 Purpose of the study
The aim of the paper is to conduct methodological research scenarios of the Life Cycle Assessment for selected packaging applications. Three packaging types – jars for cosmetics – were chosen for this study. They share the same function, and have identical product capacities, but are manufactured from different components and with the use of different packaging materials, which makes them ideal as LCA results examples. This selection will allow the study to focus specifically on two factors that are very often quoted as the main disadvantages of LCA – imperfect impact assessment methodology and quality of inventory data. Therefore, the main aim of this paper is to show and discuss approaches available to limit those disadvantages.
This will be done by performing the comparison of available LCIA methods on the example of tested packaging.
Normally, in Life Cycle Assessments” goal and scope stage, specific impact assessment method is selected. There are numerous impact assessment methods to choose from, and they can vary significantly in their set of impact categories, list of classified substances and characterisation factors. This leads to the risk of LCA being too reliant on just one interpretative paradigm. One method of validating results and combating this problem, is to calculate the inventory data through several methods with
similar impact categories and record differences and anomalies. This study will demonstrate this by portraying the cradle-to-grave comparative results of three packaging types according to three methods – ReCiPe, Impact 2002+ and ILCD 2011.
2. Methodolody
2.1. Life Cycle Assessment standards and software
Life Cycle Assessment is a standardised method. ISO 14040:2006, Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework, provides a clear overview
of the practice, applications and limitations of LCA to a broad range of potential users and stakeholders, including those with a limited knowledge of life cycle assessment. While ISO 14044:2006, Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines, is designed for the preparation of, conduct of, and critical review of life cycle inventory analysis. It also provides guidance on the impact assessment phase of LCA and on the interpretation of LCA results, as well as the nature and quality of the data collected.
This study uses both standards, and the LCA examples presented here follow the internal LCA guidelines of ISO 14044: 2006. SimaPro 8 software is LCA assessment tool in line with ISO 14040: 2006. SimaPro 8 software allows to create full LCA’s, LCA reports, export results, calculate uncertainty and most importantly includes numerous databases with input and output data of thousands of feedstock products, processes, transport and energy mixes. [5]
2.2. Impact assessment methods
For the interpretation of lists of emitted chemical substances, this study utilises three different methods. The main method – ReCiPe is used throughout the study. It was chosen on the merit of giving opportunity to assess individual categories of environmental impacts and enabling to recalculate these inflows into categories of environmental damages. In addition to that, to illustrate results variations based on the method chosen, two other methods were used in cradle-to-grave comparisons.
Detailed descriptions of methods used, can be found below – they literature concerning those methods is in line the most recent official SimaPro 8 Methods Manual from May 2017 and therefore describe the current state of methodology research:
ReCiPe method
ReCiPe is the successor of the methods Eco-indicator 99 and CML-IA. The purpose at the start of the development was to integrate the „problem oriented approach” of CML-IA and the „damage oriented approach” of Eco-indicator 99. The „problem oriented approach” defines the impact categories at a midpoint level. The uncertainty of the results at this point is relatively low. The drawback of this solution is that it leads to many different impact categories which makes the drawing of conclusions with the obtained results complex. The damage oriented approach of Eco-indicator 99 results in only three impact categories, which makes the interpretation of the results easier. However, the uncertainty in the results is higher. ReCiPe implements both strategies and has both midpoint (problem oriented) and endpoint (damage oriented) impact categories. The midpoint characterization factors are multiplied by damage factors, to obtain the endpoint characterization values. ReCiPe comprises two sets of impact categories with associated sets of characterization factors. At the endpoint level, most of these midpoint impact categories are multiplied by damage factors and aggregated into three endpoint categories: The three endpoint categories are normalized, weighted, and aggregated into a single score.
Figure 1 portrays relations between the 18 midpoint categories, and the 3 endpoint categories [6,7].
Impact 2002+ method
IMPACT 2002+, acronym of IMPact Assessment of Chemical Toxics, is an impact assessment methodology originally developed at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology – Lausanne (EPFL), with current developments carried out by the same team of researchers now under the name of Ecointesys-life cycle systems (Lausanne). The present methodology proposes a feasible implementation of a combined midpoint/damage approach, linking all types of life cycle inventory results (elementary flows and other interventions) via 14 midpoint categories to four damage categories (Figure 2) [8,9].
It is worth noting that the climate change damage category is directly linked to a popular single issue IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) global warming method – the so called „carbon footprint” method, which uses kg of CO2 equivalent gasses as its unit, and was adopted in the Kyoto protocol.
ILCD Midpoint+ method
The full title of this method is: ILCD recommendations for LCIA in the European context.
The European Commission (ECJRC–IES, 2011) analysed several methodologies for LCIA and made some effort towards harmonization. Starting from the first pre-selection of existing methods and the definition of criteria, a list of recommended methods for each impact category at both midpoint and endpoint was produced. The endpoint methods, however, are not included here, because the list is far from complete. Recommendations are given for the impact categories of climate change, ozone depletion, human toxicity, particulate matter/respiratory inorganics, photochemical ozone formation, ionizing radiation impacts, acidification, eutrophication, ecotoxicity, land use and resource depletion Research needs are identified for each impact category and differentiated according to their priority. No method development took place in the development of the ILCD recommendations. The intention was to identify and promote current best practice. These recommendations do not provide recommendations for weighting across impact categories, nor for normalization within a given category relative to impacts in a given region. Environmental impact categories of ILCD method are portrayed in figure 3 [10].
Characterization factors for long term emissions are set to zero, because this was an implicit requirement from the European Commission. Weighting factors were added with equal weights for each of the recommended categories as indicated by the guidance document [10].
As the ILCD method is still under development it is important to remark that the very significant impact category of fossil and mineral resources depletion is not yet implemented in the method. This is especially considerable when comparing weighted and single score results for plastic and renewable products.
3. Goal and scope
3.1. Samples and functional unit
All packaging types for the study were provided by the Novo-Pak company from Otwock (Mazovia region). They comprise of three cosmetics jars of identical capacity (50 ml):
1. Polypropylene (PP) jar
2. Glass/Polypropylene (PP) jar
3. Polylactic acid (PLA) jar
Tested packaging types are presented on figure 4.
The functional unit for this study is 50 ml of cosmetics packed (cream). This allows to make direct comparisons between all three packaging types.
Packaging types differ by their material composition as well as their construction.
Polypropylene (PP) jar comprises of 5 different elements (all produced from Polypropylene), glass jar comprises of glass base and polypropylene cover in three parts, while PLA jar – the lightest and simples packaging solution – consists of just the base and one element cover. Specific masses of construction materials (in grams) are shown on table 1.
Construction elements of particular packaging types are shown on figures 5-7.
3.2. System boundaries
The LCA study considers standard system boundaries scenario Cradle to Grave scenario – this scenario looks at the whole life cycle of the packaging. It includes all the processes of the Cradle the Gate scenario (above), and goes on further until it is considered a post-consumer waste. It is important to note that all three packaging life cycle assumptions after production are identical (i. e. identical transport routes, identical product packing systems and processes, identical distribution channels, and identical usage trends), and therefore are not indicated in the final results. This was a deliberate choice of the authors, because it allows the results to reflect on the actual differences of the packaging systems. The main difference in the Cradle to Grave boundary is the waste management stage. To illustrate the impact of the waste management options, Polish packaging centric waste management scenario was chosen from the database. It includes recycling, incineration and landfilling of particular packaging elements, and takes into account the environmental credits from recycling (i. e. impact offset, showing the positive environmental benefit of recycling). Recycling, incineration and landfilling percentages of particular packaging materials that are used in this LCA are presented on table 2.
Those percentages are derived from Polish data of EcoInvent 3 database. It is worth noting the fact that composting is still not a viable end-of-life option in Poland, according to this database.
Cradle-to-Grave system boundary diagrams for all three products are presented on figures 8-10.
3.3. Data collection
There were 2 main sources of the data used for this study:
1. Primary data – the physical samples were obtained from the Novo-Pak company from Otwock (Mazovia region). The company also shared their processing data and explained their manufacturing procedure, which is reflected by the changes to the data from database – the second source of data.
2. Secondary data – data from EcoInvent 3 database concerning feedstock materials, granulate, packaging glass making, additional processing and end-of-life waste management, recycling, incineration and landfilling. Data from literature concerning the energy use of various manufacturing equipment and processes of glass making. Where possible data from database was changed to reflect primary data collected from Novo-Pak.
4. Results
Results are presented in the following tables:
1. Cradle-to-Grave weighted results comparison results of three packaging types, utilising ReCiPe
2. Cradle-to-Grave weighted results comparison results of three packaging types, utilising Impact 2002+ method Cradle-to-Grave weighted results comparison results of three packaging types, utilising ILCD 2011 method,
4.1. Cradle-to-Grave comparison results – ReCiPe Method
4.2. Cradle-to-Grave comparison results – Impact 2002+ Method
4.3. Cradle-to-Grave comparison results – ILCD 2011 Method
5. Discussion of results and conclusions
5.1. Cradle-to-Grave comparisons of different methods
Three different methods were used to compare the results of three packaging types. Those methods included two end-point methods (ReCiPe and Impact 2002+) and one mid-point method with single score – ILCD – method developed and recommended by European Commission. In LCA studies method scenario comparisons are usually done to account for possible mismatches of specific data, versus substance list utilised by particular method. It may happen that input data included in the calculation is not at all accounted for by methods classification and characterisation factors. To check whether inclusion, or non-inclusion of specific substances changes the result, ISO 14044 endorses choosing one or two methods with similar philosophy of impact assessment calculations, to the primary method chosen. This is to assure the objectivity of the assessment.
In the instance of three tested packaging types, ReCiPe and Impact 2002+ methods show similar results. ReCiPe weighted results shows climate change (from both human health and ecosystems perspective), particulate matter formation, human toxicity, land occupation and fossil depletion as the main environmental impacts of three packaging types. Similarly Impact 2002+ indicates that three tested packaging types influence the environment mostly in carcinogens, respiratory inorganics, global warming and non-renewable energy categories. Even though the categories are different they address similar environmental and health related mechanisms, and what is more the specific impacts of particular types of packaging are similar – with PP jar having the highest impacts for most categories, followed by PLA jar (which nonetheless has smallest environmental burden in fossil depletion/non-renewable energy category), and ending with glass/PP jar with lowest impact. It is also interesting to note that Impact 2002+ weighted method places a higher significance on respiratory organics category (particulate matter formation being ReCiPe equivalent category). On the other hand ILCD method results differ considerably from ReCiPe and Impact 2002+. According to ILCD the most important weighted impacts for three types of packaging are – human toxicity – both cancer and non-cancer and freshwater ecotoxicity (the latter without a viable equivalent in ReCiPe and Impact 2002+). To interpret those results, it is important to remind here, that ILCD method does not yet have a viable and recommended impact assessment category for fossil resources usage/depletion, and taking into consideration previous results from ReCiPe and Impact 2002+ in the case of three packaging types, (and packaging materials in general) such category is very important and influences a considerable share of final single score of impact assessment. It is therefore a recommendation of the authors of this study, not to utilise ILCD method until an impact assessment category relating to natural non-renewable resources will be developed and implemented.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Żakowska H., Ganczewski G., Environmental trends in packaging. LCA and „carbon footprint” for selected types of consumer bags [w:] „CURRENT TRENDS IN COMMODITY SCIENCE. Environmenal and Market Research, Zeszyty Naukowe” nr 216/2011, red. Foltynowicz Z., Witczak J., Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu, Poznań 2011, s. 79-88.
[2] Żakowska H., Systemy recyklingu odpadów opakowaniowych w aspekcie wymagań ochrony środowiska, Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu, Poznań 2008.
[3] Żakowska H., Wytyczne do wykonywania analizy cyklu życia (LCA) opakowań i ograniczenia tej metody, „Opakowanie” nr 11/2004, s. 20-23.
[4] Żakowska H., Ganczewski G., Nowakowski K., Kilanowski M., Przeprowadzenie ekologicznej oceny cyklu życia (LCA) toreb wielokrotnego użytku, Raport końcowy na zlecenie Ministerstwa Środowiska, COBRO, 2010.
[5] Goedkoop M., Oele M., Leijting J., Ponsioen T., Meijer E., Introduction to LCA with SimaPro, © 2002-2016 PRé Consultants. Some rights reserved. January 2016.
[6] Goedkoop, M. J.; Heijungs, R.; Huijbregts, M. A. J.; De Schryver, A. M.; Struijs, J.; Van Zelm, R. 2009. ReCiPe 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; First edition Report I: Characterisation. 6 January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net.
[7] Sleeswijk, A.W.; van Oers, L. F.; Guinée, J. B.; Huijbregts, M.A.J. 2007. Normalization in product life cycle assessment: An LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. Sci Total Environ 390 (1): 227-240.
[8] Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H. J.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Hischier, R.; Hellweg, S.; Humbert, S.; Margni, M.; Nemecek, T.; Spielmann, M. 2007. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods: Data v2.0. ecoinvent report No. 3, Swiss centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
[9] Jolliet, O.; Margni, M.; Charles, R.; Humbert, S.; Payet, J.; Rebitzer, G.; Rosenbaum, R. 2003. IMPACT 2002+: A New Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology. Int J LCA 8 (6): 324 – 330.
[10] European Commission – Joint Research Centre. 2011. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context. First edition November 2011. EUR 24571 EN. Luxemburg. Publications Office of the European Union; 2011
Grzegorz Ganczewski, COBRO – Instytut Badawczy Opakowań
Alfa-Print Sp. z o.o.
ul. Świętokrzyska 14A
00-050 Warszawa
